Dick has recently written a scathing letter to the CEO of the Murdoch press in Australia. It is a terrible letter; arrogant, aggressive and elitist; and ironic and hypocritical given his referral to the “occupy” movement and the usual default position for rich moralists, the perils of “growth” and the virtues of sustainability.
Dick is an avid supporter of AGW and, like the recent Finkelstein report, makes the connection between perceived defects in the media presentation of the news and how AGW is described to the general public by the media. Dick says this:
When friends ask me why your organisation runs such opposing views on climate change - on Fox News’ claims that it’s all bunkum to The Australian newspaper occasionally claiming it’s accepted science – I am able to say,“it’s simple. It’s all about making more money.
This is wrong at so many levels. Firstly, the real money is and has always been in supporting AGW. The amount of money supporting AGW is vastly greater compared with the money which is supporting sceptics.
Secondly, big business has overwhelmingly been financially supportive of AGW. Big business includes oil and fossil fuel companies, the usual villains of the AGW scam narrative.
However, by far the main source of funding of the AGW scam has come from government. This Green/ALP government is already spending and will eventually spend $13.2 billion on Green energy schemes in the next few years.
This is despite the fact that Green energy does not work, and therefore any money spent on it will be wasted. But the fact that it is government money which is being splashed around means that there will always be spivs and conmen around with their snouts in the trough.
How does Murdoch benefit from this? Does Dick offer any evidence for his claim that Murdoch will benefit from his papers’ alleged opposition to the scam of AGW? No, he doesn’t; he just makes a typical accusation of the sort which the alarmists use as their stock in trade, which incidentally makes no sense; Dick simply says Murdoch will get money by taking a contrary view about AGW.
I can personally assure Dick that this approach does not make money.
Is Dick a supporter of the Finkelstein report which advocates greater control of the media, particularly the Murdoch media? It looks like it; he calls opposition to Finkelstein “claptrap” and goes all sanctimonious by wishing Finkelstein regulations were not necessary but he “can see why they are being proposed”. With his superior insight, then like Finkelstein, Dick will also think the average person will be tricked by the Murdoch press’s opposition to AGW. That is, Dick thinks the average reader is irrational and likely to be stirred up by false news.
Dick even resorts to the old chestnut that the Murdoch media is 70% of the total media. Dick says to Murdoch:
As you control 70% of the print media is Australia
This is claptrap. According to Parliamentary Library figures Murdoch publishes 32% of Australia’s print media but has over 70% of the readership. Murdoch is indeed the preferred source of news by the Australian average reader. Opposition to Murdoch is therefore a minority position.
It is also an arrogant and elitist position. Dick likes to pretend he is just an average punter but he is not. He shares the same elite position about AGW which informs the Finkelstein report. Dick also shares the tendency towards misanthropy which motivates the Green ideology. Dick thinks there are too many people in Australia and the world. He wants a negative population growth for Australia. Obviously Dick is offended by the numbers of people spoiling his right to enjoy nature untrammelled.
This sort of misanthropy is dangerously hostile to humanity because its logical end is that humanity is a blight and threat to nature. Is that what Dick wants? No people? If no people then how many; is the Chinese ‘solution’ to population something he would endorse? If not, what methods would he use to enforce his demands for a negative population?
Has Dick even considered the growing evidence against AGW? He may be surprised to know that a court case has just concluded in New Zealand. In New Zealand the temperature record is prepared by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research LTD [NIWA], which is their equivalent of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology [BOM].The New Zealand temperature record was challenged for being misleading and showing a temperature trend of 0.91C per century when the raw data showed a small trend of 0.23C; and even when the NIWA’s own criteria for adjusting raw data was used only a trend of 0.34C was found. NIWA had exaggerated the true trend by nearly 300%.
The Defence which NIWA filed was remarkable. Basically NIWA disowned the temperature record and said compiling an accurate record was not part of their duty.
During the court proceedings it became apparent why NIWA had chosen such a Defence. As part of the Defence it was argued that NIWA did not have a duty to pursue a standard of excellence in its activities; Counsel on their behalf argued that what NIWA aspired to was:
This is in contradiction to the pronouncements of certainty and public declarations of “the science is settled” which have framed the context of the NZ temperature record and its employment as justification for policy.
It also contradicts the essence of government service to the community which funds the government’s various agencies and rightfully expects those agencies should work for the public’s benefit.
It is a desperate Defence which can only be explained as a muddying of the waters and an attempt to obfuscate a plain interpretation of the role of government instrumentalities and their attendant duties.
It is also a clever Defence because if NIWA succeeds in having its functions not classified as duties then no breach of duty can be levied against it.
The ramifications for the BOM Australian temperature record are profound because that temperature record is compiled in a similar fashion to the New Zealand one. It would seem that a similar court action would be feasible against BOM.
Is the Defence by NIWA the sort of evidence which Dick relies on? And does he support such legal action against agencies like NIWA because the media exposure of the defects of the AGW evidence is censored in a way recommended by Finkelstein and there is no other option?
Dick is no doubt comforted by the fact that both of the major political parties in Australia, not only subscribe to the evidence for AGW, but seem to approve of Finkelstein’s approach to bringing the media’s misreporting [sic] of this evidence to an end.
AGW is a highly controversial concept, but freedom of the press is not. The evidence against AGW is growing. For Dick to base his support of Finkelstein and less media freedom on the truth of AGW is not only controversial but wrong.