Finkelstein and Dick Smith.
by NCTCS Secretary Anthony Cox.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment
All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!