A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist (Part 1)

Galileo Movement published an EXCLUSIVE Story on their Facebook page (link)

Graham Readfearn (journalist - sort of), in an attempt to embarrass the incoming Abbott Government's possible new science minister Dennis Jensen MP for being sceptical of AGW wrote the following piece intended to be used by the alarmist army to attack him.


See more at Galileo's Facebook page:- https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=506463672777667&id=101728306584541

A journalist with a grudge
is a mere propagandist 
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist. Graham Readfearn, described as “a journalist," heavily lost a public debate on the climate against me some years ago and has borne a
steaming grudge ever since. Readfearn is no seeker after truth

He is an unthinking propagandist for the New Religion of Thermageddon TM.

This sad figure, furious at his fellow - Socialists’ recent electoral drubbing, now snipes
futilely at Dennis Jensen, perhaps the most scientifically-qualified member of either
House, and certainly better qualified than the militantly ignorant Readfearn.
Dennis Jensen’s crime, in Readfearn’s eyes, is that “he doesn’t accept the position of the world’s science academies and Australia’s CSIRO that climate change is caused mainly by humans burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees and that this might be bad.”

Stop right there, Graham, baby. Let’s just take a peek at the peer-reviewed literature
on this notion that there is some sort of a scientific consensus that Man can claim credit for most of the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

As Readfearn may know, in May 2013 a comic called Environment Research Letters, which was set up in 2006 precisely to preach the New Religion, published a fairy-tale by five polemical blog rats at Queensland Kindergarten and a clutch of their studenty friends at various real universities.

These children’s story was that 97.1% of abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific papers published worldwide between 1991 and 2012 endorsed the supposed “scientific consensus” that most post-1950 global warming was down to us.

Trouble was, this “once-upon-a-time” fable did not end “happily ever after” for the
Queensland kiddiwinks. 

Legates et al. (2013), in a grown-up, peer-reviewed paper in the long-established Science and Education journal, devastatingly revealed that the Queensland Quixotes themselves had only marked 64 out of 11,944 abstracts as actually saying that most post-1950 warming was manmade.


One realizes you’re arithmetically challenged, Graham, old fruit, so one’s large and able staff have determined that 64 out of 11,944 is not 97.1%. It’s 0.5%.


But Legates et al. went further. They read all 64 abstracts. A third of them –23, in fact – did not say most post-1950 warming was manmade. Only 41 did so. Oops3!

One’s l. and a. s. have done the math for you again, Grazza. The true length and
breadth and width of your imagined “scientific consensus” is not 97.1%. It’s 0.3%.


So, when you say “97% of research papers published in scientific journals agree that
humans are causing climate change”, you’re either using a definition of “scientific
consensus” that is not the same as the paperyou’re citing or exaggerating about


And when you take Dennis Jensen to task for saying “The argument from consensus
is a flawed argument,” it’s Dennis and not you that is correct. 


You see, Grabbikins, real scientists from Thales of Miletus and Aristotle via Abu Ali
Ibn al-Haytham, Galilei and Newton to Huxley, Einstein, Popper and Feynman don’t
consider consensus is science, not even if it’s a consensus of soi-disant “experts” or 
even of “academies” or of grand-sounding “Commonwealth Institutes”. 

The late Michael Crichton, no mean scientist himself, put it best: “If it’s consensus, it
isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.”

One appreciates that the constituents of the Socialist hive mind hate thinking for them-
selves,  and are largely incapable of doing so. But science and Socialism are clean
different things, Graham, my old son, and this particular attempt by the latter to take
over the former has already failed  abjectly. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

But Jensen’s capital crime, in Redfearn’s eyes, is that he once said most of my work is
“entirely reasonable”. Jensen had said: “Some of it I don’t agree with, but on the whole 
a lot of what he says is in my view correct.”

Readfearn then takes a dozen assertions of mine, rips them out of context like a good
little propagandist, distorts them just a tad to make them look as silly as possible, and 
then challenges Dennis Jensen to say whether he agrees with the Readfearn version,
asking with tedious repetitiveness, “Yes or No?”

Altogether not a very grown-up carry-on, but very much in the Readfearn tradition of
putting Socialism before everything, and especially before the truth.

Continued in Part 2 - HERE