by Anthony Cox
|I met a fool in the forest, a motley fool!|
The AG, George Brandis is going to either repeal or amend Section 18C of the RDA, the section which got Bolt and which is used by Islamists to stop legitimate criticism of the evils of Islam.
Naturally the Greens, the party of censorship and working against the best interests of Australia, has objected to Brandis’ proposed change. Adam Bandt, previously a multiple member of the Bastards Club, has come out claiming that sceptics having a right of speech is feudal.
Apparently Abbot’s restoration of the Royal Honours system means giving everyone the right to have their viewpoint is part of the feudal system. What can you say to that except to quote from Shakespeare:
I met a fool i’ the forest, A motley fool.
Bandt is a motley fool, brimming with puffery and vinegary vapours, and if he and his fellow fools had their way we would all be living in the dark in the forest. Bandt says:
I mean, if someone said 'two plus two equals five', would you insist on giving them as much airtime in the media as someone who said 'two plus two equals four'?
Bandt means to say that the sceptics cannot add up and says the science of AGW:
has been through one of the most rigorous peer-reviewed processes it can go through.
The science community is now essentially speaking with one voice.
This is a lie, a complete misrepresentation.
The idea of a consensus found its peer reviewed form in Cook’s egregious paper. This paper has been ridiculed throughout the blog community. That it was published is both an indictment of the peer review process and the calibre of those who support AGW. I replied to it here. Mr Cook turned up to debate and I replied to him:
In your paper you define the consensus position as being: "That humans are causing global warming." That consensus position is defined in your categories by category 1 of Table 2 which I have already quoted. The rest of your categories reflect varying degrees of lessor support for AGW [categories 2 and 3], or indifference to AGW [categories 4a and 4b] or active opposition to AGW [categories 5 to 7]. Only the first 3 categories could be defined as giving support for AGW. However, on the basis of the categories 1-3, of the original 11944 Abstracts from papers on climate you selected you discarded 8048 papers or 67.4% because they had no position. Of the remaining 4014 papers or 32.6% of papers 3973 or 99% of the remaining abstracts fell into categories 2 and 3. Only 41 or 1% expressed support for YOUR definition of the consensus that: "Humans are causing global warming." That’s 1% not 97%.
That’s 1% not 97%! Mr Cook did not reply further. So when Bandt says AGW science speaks with one voice we can say a couple of things. Firstly that voice doesn’t know what it is talking about. It cannot claim a consensus because it cannot do its sums right. And when Bandt talks about two and two equals five he is talking about AGW not the sceptics.
Secondly, the consensus is in fact with the sceptics with thousands of papers against AGW science and thousands of scientists and meteorologists with no vested interest, financial or ideological, in promoting the lie of AGW, being sceptical of AGW.
Thirdly AGW science actively seeks to censor, just as Bandt does, any opposing view. Bandt is not the only censorious bastard in the ranks of the AGW believers. People like Hamilton, Manne, Suzuki, Gore, and the ABC have all advocated suppression of and censorship of sceptics. People like Lewandowsky say sceptics have mental abnormalities. Or at least he tried to say that until his paper failed even the helpful peer review that alarmist papers receive. This failed paper still receives published status at Lewandowsky’s former university which tells you all you need to know about the Tertiary sectors commitment to alarmism.
The simple fact is if AGW was reputable, legitimate, evidenced science it wouldn’t need the bully boy tactics that bastards like Bandt employ. But because AGW is a failed theory it has to resort to these tactics which belong in Communism and other tyrannical societies. Of course the political party which Bandt belongs to has communists amongst its members so his despicable comments are consistent with that ‘pedigree’.
Let us hope Brandis keeps his nerve and resists the pressure from Bandt and other bastards of the left who do not have the best interests of this nation at heart.