Warning: snark ahead
According to last night’s Lateline, “A growing number of bloggers are now using the internet to attack the science of global warming. Written by climate change sceptics, the blogs are hosting a new scientific debate over whether the world has become hotter or colder during the past ten years.”
The reporter’s evidence for this “new scientific debate”? Andrew Bolt and Jennifer Marohasy. You know, Bolt. The long-serving columnist with a regular gig in the Herald-Sun and Insiders. And Marohasy, the IPA employee whose glass-half-full schtick on the environment has been making its way into the mainstream media for many years. Both do run blogs (in Bolt’s case, to give him credit, he does genuinely blog in a way that most journalists haven’t tried), but the idea that they are in any way new voices on the scene is complete rot. And their “new scientific debate”? A rehashed version of the “world is cooling” nonsense - based on a high-schooler’s level of data analysis - that they’ve been running for years, which as Paul noted has been debunked in detail by any number of experts.
Note to John Stewart (the Lateline reporter, not the Daily Show host): just because somebody says it on the Internet doesn’t make it new, scientific, or interesting. And if you really want to report on climate change blogging, might I suggest there’s a whole other world of it out there that’s been doing a whole lot better covering not only the problem, but the merits of the various solutions, than your program has managed?
“just because somebody says it on the Internet doesn’t make it new, scientific, or interesting”
Aint that the truth.
It’s unsurprising to see the Bolta and Marohasy on the TV now - they have succeeded in fabricating a debate (which implies two equal sides). What I didn’t like was the characterisation of Marohasy in particular as “a blogger” when in fact she’s primarily paid by the IPA to do just that.
Bolt blogs but he’s not a ‘blogger’, he’s a mainstream media commentator and not independent in any sense of the word.
Anyway, they just came off a mad as cut snakes, sad and funny at the same time. The earth is flat don’t you know?
It was pathetic reporting by Lateline last night, do journalists _ever_ actually use the internet? and frankly it’s pathetic that anyone is giving these idiots oxygen.
Lateline wouldn’t put people claiming that blacks are lower in IQ on average on tv, or people saying that asbestos is harmless.
Lomborg, I disagree with, but at least he has an argument with a semblance to the reality. The rest? They’re no more news than flat-earthers.
Please, patrickg, don’t give them any more silly ideas. Do we really want Jack Strocchi on national television?
This week on Grand Narrative, we visit Jack from strocchiverse.com to see how the Decline of the Wets explains all events of the last 20 years.
and this…is the Jackerstrocchi. Here on the plains of Blogistan, the Jackerstrocchi eeks out an existence predating on the Wets, using it’s time-honoured technique of bludgeoning and boring them to death with great walls of text.
I’m not too hung up on whether Bolt and Marohasy are “bloggers”.
What I do get hung up on is the idea is that they, or their arguments, are in any way new or credible.
I don’t watch Lateline anymore unless it’s hosted by Leigh Sayles or Virginia Trioli. I reckon Tony Jones is like a Democratic Party Hawk or Liberal Party stooge. Somethin’ way too Right-Wing & tricky dick about that fella for my likings. I reckon he’ll be working for the Corporates soon enuff…unless they turn the ABC into one big corporate party. There are some positive changes in the ABC since Labor won…but something stinks in that place…there’s rotten core as evidenced by the backdoor ads & promotion of major multi-national corporations by way of camera placement in news stories etc.
As for that war-mongering, climate skeptic Bolt, I reckon day by day he’s metamorphisising into a mutant cross between Archie Bunker (an archaic thinking, moody, agro, mouthy, sh*t stirring, patriarchal, disagreeable so & so) and Frank Burns (pious, occasionally sycophantic crawler, pushy, egotistical, unimaginative, stubborn, dobbing, finger-pointing, holier than thou, patriotic, irritant…promoting conservative views ad nauseum as the winds of change blow him into a panicked state and he becomes, has become, a laughing stock )…he’ll probably become a Principal of a strict, myopic, religious boys school…or a dour Priest in later life. Or shoot off to NY to write for the annoying Murdoch papers…& argue w/ NY Times food & film critics all day.
Turned off in disgust. It’s happening a lot lately.
At least the Gruen Transfer is comimg to an end.
Like, there haven’t been a lot of posts on LP lately, actually examining the science, for example. Don’t these ABC journos like what they read here?
We would have learnt more if they’d done an itrem on George Pell’s climate scepticism.
Somebody needs to go through the ABC with a broom, NOW.
And I’m an avid fan.
The climate change denialist-delusionist mentality is strongly reminiscent of this.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/thousands-rally-in-support-of-karadzic/2008/07/30/1217097273718.html
Different issue, same psychology.
Ooh, that’s a bit rough, IMHO.
There was more reality on Jennifer Byrne’s book programme on animals in books, with the discussion of the scientific accuracy of Beatrix Potter’s drawings.
(Though they didn’t discuss Lassie, Come Home and Black Beauty.)
Not meant and shouldn’t be used as a derailment. Is comparing contrasting realities of the content of the two shows.
Hey, I don’t watch Lateline unless it’s hosted by Leigh Sayles. Nobody is worse than La Trioli IMO - I’d even watch Wil Anderson hosting the show in preference. As long as he didn’t bring along his designer stubble advertising mates that is.
The thing about the rabid right is that they are never wrong. Unlike most people, these highly paid commentators live in a consequence free zone where they just move from issue to issue, cause to futile cause, as if the past and their part in it never existed.
Just as they were wrong about Iraq, wrong about Dr Haneef, wrong about border protection, wrong about the culture wars etc., they will be shown to be wrong on global warming. Yet they’ll continue to be employed by irresponsible media organisations because the truth doesn’t really matter to any of them.
Is Jones using Boltas “stir ‘em up” method to attract viewers? If so will he use his” I never said that” defense?
I agree Robert, it was disgraceful reporting. There are a myriad of fringe views out there but we don’t see Lateline reporting on bloggers who think the CIA blew up the WTC on 9/11.
And Jennifer Marohasy? How long will she dine out on the PhD for?
“Is Jones using Boltas “stir ‘em up” method to attract viewers?”
I think they both heart Bill (bloviating, bullying & blabbering “Me independent even tho I enjoy a talking point from the Busheviks slipped under my door now & then” O’Reilly.
But that persona is much later down the road for those two, if at all now…once their Dear media & religious Leaders get a mass of Aussies acting like super-agro, me, me, me, “No-Pedos on my turf!”, “screw the migrants unless they clean my toilets, serve me food, pick my crops, build my houses cheap”, borish, merchandise lovin’, finger-pointin’ creeps…
I think they missed their boat.
Sure, we have the Borg Boofheads & mate Joyce (hero of the blood sports) here in QLD bellowing about their achievements (plenty of people not acting like the Footy Show & American wrestling too)…but hopefully they’ll realise that going down the bullying, boorish, xenophobic road will only bring despair to QLD farmers & businesses as trade & energy use shifts…& tourists demand a “down-to-earth” approach, quality, politeness, good service, enviro-protection & cultural imagination, innovation & diversity in order to take the big plunge to use carbon & big moolah to get to Australia.
Obama is a classy character…but also laid back. If he wins, which is probable, the boorish, war-mongering, patriarchal, overly corporate types will look like offensive and desperate car & insurance salesmen/women during Xmas/Christmas eve in Michigan.
Times are a changin’…regardless of the HYPE that some local papers & corporate media are pumpin’. I saw a family go on a picnic w/ their kids the other day. And a young man open a door for an old lady. And the distinct sound of “yes please” emanated from a young boy’s mouth in the supermarket when asked if they wanted some watermelon to be put in the shopping cart. And I let a fella thru who had only two products & he said “thanks” instead of just walking past like a zombie.
N’
@Robert, I reckon they are using the term ‘blogger’ in terms of being an outsider when in fact Bolt and greenwashingwhatshernamebimbospokesmodel are firmly a part of the same media/political ecosystem as Jones and Lateline. Using the term is almost a disavowal of their place in that system. It’s a nice get out of jail free card for the MSM.
make that “boorish”. And add a bracket.
“And he even used Bon Ami”…but still couldn’t get the errors out….;)
Ben: BTW, loved your New Matilda piece about the rent situation.
La Maro’s “blog” is in interesting study for those of us who are fascinated by conspiracy theory. The final plank of any argument against global warming in the participants minds is the accepted fact that thousands of hours are being spent maintaining the fiction of global warming. Have they never heard of Ockham’s Razor?
My take on teh debate in the Oz Higher Ed Supplement today
It’s remarkable that political blogging would be referred to as new, since it’s been an active part of Australian political world for the last few years. Thanks for blogging about this atrocious rot.
Phil: good point.
I agree, it was very poor reporting by Lateline. The segment gave the impression that Marohasy and Bolt were indepedent-minded people who had no vested interests. They both, of course, have plenty of vested interests in climate change. Lateline should have mentioned these vested interests in their report.
Having read the transcript on the Lateline site, it’s even more pathetically superficial and misleading than I had imagined. We should all use the comment facility to tell Lateline what we think of their standard of journalism.
Why bother complaining? Just sell ABC TV while it’s still worth something. Standards are not going to improve, so railing against the dying of the institution is a waste of time and emotion.
But at least they’ve invented a new word: ‘bloggasceptic’. Death to left and right!! Long live the bloggasceptics and the blogga …. mmmm … we need another new word for us gullible types who refuse to see the significance of a whole two years of data.
Bolt and Jones had a few drinks after Bolt’s recent appearance on Q&A. Bolt said on his blog that Jones is a decent bloke, despite being an “alarmist”.
I reckon something was set up during that Thursday night booze up.
Bolt’s scientific credentials are impeccable. I would trust this man over the IPCC any day. As for Marohasy, at least the IPA don’t have the gall to use “Independent” for their “I” like the CIS.
“Or shoot off to NY to write for the annoying Murdoch papers…& argue w/ NY Times food & film critics all day.” Nasking at 9
I’ve long had the view that all of Bolta’s Bush obsequiousness had a lot do with an ambition to eventually succeed that Steve what’s-his-name as Murdoch’s No.1 hatchet man in the US. Can’t think of his surname, but Steve was there all through the gory days of Truth and the Sunday Mirror in Sydney then the great conquests in London and finally the US. Must be just about retired by now, but Murdoch seems content with some of the local shills like Bill O’Reilly, and has not shown much interest on another boy from Oz.
Tough luck for Bolta, who was obviously shaping up better here as a potential heir than Hanoi Piers but them’s the breaks.
Note to Prodder Larveans: The ABC charter says lots of things, but nowhere does it say that above all ABC news & current affairs must reflect your personal opinions, prejudices and beliefs.
Tough luck.
News bulletin for those who have been saying “the science is in, the debate is over, too late for submissions, climate change is decided!” then clapping hands over their ears:
Debate on climate change has NOT YET BEGUN. There is going to be a LOT more debate/discussion on this topic, and the case for change/warming is going to have to be proved under rigorous scrutiny and in the face of extreme challenge.
The (exacting) onus of proof will be on the pro-climate change/warming scenario.
Get used to it.
Hey Steve, news for you - it’s got nothing to do with our opinions blah blah blah, but everything to do with fact versus fiction and reality versus illusion.
And how about you get used to it old son.
“Debate on climate change has NOT YET BEGUN. There is going to be a LOT more debate/discussion on this topic, and the case for change/warming is going to have to be proved under rigorous scrutiny and in the face of extreme challenge.”
Indeed there will be.Of course, most of the debate from the denialists will come from the, earth is flat, the surge in Iraq is a success, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of Kennedy,and the polar caps melting is all just a natural process fraternity.
The evidence is in, global warming is a reality. Get used to it.
Adrian, since the issue of climate change is a scientific debate what are your qualifications as a scientist to separate fact from fiction?
I don’t have the qualifications GregM, that’s precisely why I accept the opinions of those that do.
You really would be better of asking the question to SATP and other of his ilk.
Do you see the problem, Adrian? You may well be right in your opinion, and the science may well support it (but then it’s your assertion about fact versus fiction so it’s incumbent on you to do the hard yards of demonstrating that as Brian and Robert Merkel regularly do) but when someone posts lunacy like this to support your case then he does nothing to advance it.
Let Marlon disclose the name of the second (and third and fourth and fifth)assassin of Kennedy, his proof that, whatever his view of the wickedness of the incvasion of Iraq, that the surge in Iraq isn’t working and that both polar caps are melting. I’ll then wait for both Brian and Robert to post to point out to him that the scientific evidence is that the southern polar cap is not melting but growing thicker and that this is entirely consistent with predictions of global warming at this stage.
Then you can step back and reflect upon the problems that exist with your post. It attracts the lunatics like moths to a lamp.
That’s the problem, adrian, and Robert Merkel (as I recall) addressed it yesterday when discussing the value of scientific theory and the use of probability in scientific judgement. Scientists are divided on the issue of climate change. That is perfectly normal. That is the nature of their methodology. They pose theories. they then look for evidence and do experiments to test their theories. From them they draw conclusions as a matter of probability (for this is a limitation of observation based science), which are open to interpretation, according to the observed test results.
We as laypeople have to make what we can of their judgmeents and make our policy decisions accordingly, but anyone informed of the scientific method would blush at your uninformed statement above.
Whatever, Greg - I actually think that you sound more like a lunatic than Marlon - but don’t see how I can be responsible for the posts of others.
Then your problem Adrian is that when you make an ill-considered post as you did in response to SATP you’ll be exposed as having nothing worthwhile to say at all, as usual.
Unlike yourself Greg, whose every post is worthwhile to the max. Anyway, I’ve got better things to do than engage with the likes of you.
Gee, suggesting that there is debate yet to come seems to really bring out everything but a rational “Our facts are straightforward, yeah we’re ready for debate, ready to calmly demonstrate irrefutable facts” from the believers. Hmmmm…
The average punter is yet to pay any more than passing attention to the climate change issue, but as soon as it looks like it is going to cost them real coin, or cause their standard of living to lower, they are going to want to be really sure that their sacrifice is necessary.
The way the global warming theory is currently being defended is going to, at that moment, come under one hell of a lot of scrutiny.
If you are not prepared to engage in serious debate, adrian, as it appears you are not, then I am not unhappy for you to bow out. My point was that, as Robert merkel put it, this is a scientific debate and we should understand that in the conclusions we draw and the decisions we make.
“Then you can step back and reflect upon the problems that exist with your post. It attracts the lunatics like moths to a lamp.”
Without going back and rehashing history, the “Warren Commission was not the final say on the Kennedy assassination.Anyone after reading the volumes of controversial material available for this crime, unless a total moron (sorry lunatic your words)would not conclude that the assassination was any thing else but, a conspiracy,with Oswald and other unknown assassins involved.
As far as the polar ice caps are concerned, they are melting at an alarming rate,and the sea level is rising, FACT and MOST of the worlds global warming scientists, concur this is man made FACT, and it is getting exponentially worse.Again, to deny that the overwhelming evidence in support of “Global Warming” is not a FACT at this stage, is delusional.
As for the “Surge” working,that is right wing propaganda, and nothing else.You want evidence to confirm that fact ? ring up John Pilger, but I suspect you’ll watch Fox News.
Not everything in life requires evidence,billions of people believe in God,I think it’s all just a fairy story.
Brendon Nelson is going to get the arse as the opposition leader. I don’t have any evidence for it, but it’s going to happen none the less.
Steve at the pub, reactionary cynicism doesn’t qualify as insight anymore. The Libs are just starting to realise that, which is why they rolled Nelson over the ETS. You are yet to cotton on it seems. The voters are ahead of everyone on climate change.
PDAA, you mean I am yet to grasp that global warming is not going to be subject to serious questioning, and serious inquiry, in the next few years?
I disagree with you. Climate change/global warming is yet to come under anything like the scrutiny with which it will be tested.
Sorry Robert, right OT.
Hey SATP, just by coincidence I attended a dinner party last friday night, where a fellow guest on my left was umm.. 2IC dot dot international brewing conglomerate. I was accompanied to this soiree by the apparent chip on my shoulder
Anyhoos, never one to miss an opportunity nor a free feed and in the interests of FNQ publicans, I threw up your alcopop industry talking points over a glass or two of a very exquisite Pinot Noir. (And btw Steve, I rarely drink at home - just another social binge drinker for future stoushing reference.)
I won’t relate specifics that would be telling, but from my tete-e-tete which covered a fair range of current industry issues, and it was quite illuminating stuff, let’s just say and only in respect of this particular issue - Ute Man could more accurately be named PickUp Man.
And not that this means you shouldn’t be fighting for the rights of bundy and coke addicts, but thought you might be interested.
Oh puleeeeeeeeze SATP,
you’re going to have to tell me how four Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments since the late 80s (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007) don’t have the requisite testing or scrutiny.
I want an informed crit, not a view from the bar.
(Declaration of interest - Lead Author in the Third Assessment Report - Co-ordinating Lead Author in the Fourth)
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I tots agree that the characterisation of Bolt and Marohasy as “bloggers” was risible, as was the suggestion that they were stimulating some sort of “scientific” debate. I suspect it was just a lead in to Lomborg, but it’s still something of a disgrace.
I wasn’t watching all that carefully, but I don’t think Tony Jones called Lomborg on the obvious problem with his claims about the European ETS - the effect it might have in 2100 is surely only meaningful if the current settings never changed and were extrapolated out over 92 years. That’s just silly.
Ps - jo - there’s an active dinner party thread here, FYI:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/07/28/what-are-the-rules-for-a-good-dinner-party/
Roger, if there is any greater scrutiny on climate change (the sort of stuff which popped up on lateline) then your post at #46 will be wrong.
I am saying that widespread debate on climate change is about to get serious.
Are you saying no such thing will happen? Really?
Jo, I won’t EVER be fighting for the rights of bundy & coke drinkers. (btw, that is not how I refer to the stuff, just copying your urban/southern terminology)
Steve,
this is the problem exemplified by the recent stoush over the “Great Global Warming Swindle” in the UK, where it was conlcuded that the doco “broke the rules” but did not lead viewers to “cause harm or offence”.
The media is under no obligation to report the true state of science or anything else. Some do and some don’t - I won’t name names.
I’ve been dealing in complex environmental issues for 25 years and you’re telling me it’s about to get serious?
Read the latest New Scientist about rationality. It’s a fascinating read, and because I deal with risk, which has science on the one hand and values on the other, critical to understanding the priors in the current debate.
We need to be rational about the science and transparent about the values we are interested in.
I would be happy to send anyone a rational analysis of recent global temperatures, explaining why the handwaving on last night’s Lateline is a waste of electrons and photons.
Re - rationality - Roger, the basic problematic with Bolt is ignorance or mendacity - or both. But in a sense I think that’s missing the mark. He’s just trying to muddy the waters with what would appear to a lay public to be the appearance of “science” - ie graphs. Whether he believes what he’s saying is neither here nor there in a way.
The basis issue here is twofold - one a communications one - the message has to be distilled and communicated very simply and to be able to be hung on people’s lived experience. Bolt knows that - hence all the “it’s cold in Brisbane - much colder than most winters - hence there is no warming” - it’s not a rational argument but an appeal to experience for people who can’t make head nor tail of very complex messages. The converse of this is that the drought was the necessary condition for public acceptance of the global warming case. Bolt and that mob are betting that’s reversible.
The second issue is the broader issue of the decline in credibility of arguments from authority which is a huge background trend over the last few decades. Bolt plays on that too.
kim.
I hear and agree. Rationality only works to a point and beyond that beliefs takes a role. All philosophical argument about science founders at this point (including the what is objective or subjective debate). One really rich thing I think it says is that subjective, emotional humanity cannot truly be separated from science. As scientists, we need to link our message to the greater human discourse.
The tough thing is that scientists need to communicate what can be argued with rhetoric and what requires logic and reason. A hard ask. And because all of our key systems are complex, plenty of scope for misinformation.
Aargh - belief takes a role - not beliefs. One extra of where it’s not needed. And thing and think - communication - sheesh! It’s late, time to retire
One last word. Bolt - mendacity. But I do come across many people including decision-makers in industry who belive the science is either way. Tony Jones (no relation) has been fuelling this impression.
Roger - I wonder here what Tony Jones’ personal views are. And that’s the problem - he’d have a lot more credit with business as an opinion leader than a fool like Bolt.
Kim, you ARE joking aren’t you? Or do you live in a bubble?
Tony Jones is seen by “business” as an ABC twit. Bolt is seen as “hmm, he talks like as if he knows what he is talking about”.
Thanks for that take on the pulse of the big end of town boardrooms, steve.
“At least the Gruen Transfer is comimg to an end.”
hey? i only caught little bits of the show, but i thought it was a very interesting experiment.
back on topic, it is pretty stupid to have any journalist or blogger speaking as a commentator when their only skill is commentating. Who cares what they think? They have expertise in telling stories in such a way that a certain audience enjoys consuming their commentary and that is it.
Speak for yourself, Glen - I learn heaps on various subjects from reading blogs by people like Quiggin, P Z Myers, Tim Lambert, Orcinus, and various academic / lit blogs.
I think glen’s point is that when somebody who has other skills and expertise is also good as a commentator, it makes for interesting reading, whereas if commentating is their only skill or area of expertise, then not so much.
‘Bolt is seen as “hmm, he talks like as if he knows what he is talking about”.’
I hope I haven’t pinched your copyright, SATP, but I’ve entered your quote in the caption competition.
There is a body of reputable scientific opinion which challenges the IPCC/Stern et al “consensus” position on the grounds that it errs on the side of optimism and lack of urgency. If one accepts the validity of giving air time to the sceptics and deniers for the sake of “balance” and a fully informed debate, then this body of opinion, and its popularisers such as David Spratt and Phillip Sutton (amongst others) surely must be given equal time to the Bolts, Marohasys and Carters of the world, if only to give a realistic impression of what the actual spread and diversity of scientific opinion is.
Well said Paul Norton. The MSM, in wasting our time flailing around with “denialism”, has completely failed to cover the real story: that climate change is accelerating faster than the models predicted. We are living in lalaland.
If the big insurance companies were operating on the basis of Bolt’s beliefs, they would be out of business in 50 years, more likely even sooner.
dj, this is what the big insurers are thinking.
Yes Paul and the insurance sector has been active on the issue for well over ten years (from memory and confirmed by a press search), hence my comments aimed at the laughable notion that anyone with real money to lose would be basing their decisions on the expressed knowledge of Andrew Bolt.
So is it fair to say that any genuine disagreement among the scientific community re global warming is based on the degree of that warming, with current predictions tending to the conservative side of the argument?
57 steve at the pub
Bolt is seen as “hmm, he talks like as if he knows what he is talking about”.
Oh puhleese. Nobody in a position of serious power takes any notice of Bolt’s idiotic rantings.
adrian, there are a range of points of debate and uncertainty in global climate science which reflects the complexity of the global climate system, but to simplify, the most basic point of difference among most bona fide climate scientists is about the degree of warming associated with a given rise in greenhouse gas conentrations, and about the probabilities of particular warming scenarios. Also, the 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment Report is basically a collation of climate science to 2005. Findings since then have suggested that various aspects of global warming and its drivers may be happening faster than previously thought, so the 4th SAR may be erring on the side of conservatism (or optimism, if you like).
Thanks Paul.
Q&A got so bloody boring with its re-run of global watming denialism and various other aspects of the global warming debate that are getrting repeated ad nausewum in the MSM that I switched it off and watched a movie about the world being wiped out by bird flu that was carried by humans. Seriously.
Paul, you should have stuck around, [I was waiting for Unit One] ’cause in MHO the denialists were looking rather irrelevant and sheepish after most other interest groups supported the need for action on climate change. And just as I was about to flick over to Fischer, Ip, Johnny and co, some heavily accented “migrant bigot”asked why the Howard illegal immigrant policy was being ditched when it was so effective in keeping the hordes of unwanted riff-raff out of the Country.Best comedy I’ve seen for some time. Didn’t wait for an answer as I needed to get serious for U One. Talk about I’m in QUICK SHUT THE DOOR.
Penny Wong was very good value, I thought. I hope it gave some people who see her as a message bot some pause for thought.
Agree Kim,thought she dealt well with Mal. Seemed to bring a more relaxed and conciliatory Malcolm out too.
I thought it was unusually good humoured and interesting, and I was left thinking that Penny Wong will be PM one day, and Malcolm Turnbul should have joined the Labor Party.
Apart from the “Catholic” bit I found many of the comments from the businesswoman, Catherine Harris quite sensible & wide thinking. I thought Penny Wong a bit vague & tired sounding (Understandably) but I like her as a politician overall…she’s highly intelligent, calm, thoughtful, confident, articulate, somewhat open on her views & good natured. And Malcolm Turnbull showed the side of himself that attracts my attention sometimes…he can be quite tolerant, witty & progressive (doesn’t put that angst & anger in my heart the way the Howeirdians like Minchin, Abbott & other religious right do…Costello leaves me for cold w/ that Hillsong stuff, Yankee “prosperity gospel” crap).
Tim Flannery did a decent enuff job defending the need for CHANGE…but he looks like he needs a good, long sleep & a holiday. The other fella was a bit pushy & full of himself but showed moments of good humour & tolerance of difference. Bit Hard Right skeptical at times tho for my likings.
As for Tony Jones…he comes across like a sneaky propagandist from some far-right Dutch party (too many negative, Luddite questions asked). Somethin’ bugs me about the guy. Like he’s pumpin’ some puppet master’s agenda. Not quite sure, but my instincts tell me he changed a few years back…like someone got somethin’ on him. Happens.
Great seein’ Leigh Sayles on Lateline Wednesday as well as Thursday. I wasn’t gonna watch on Wed. but thought I’d check to see just in case. Smart, intelligent & sweet lady w/ a hard-edge…luv it. Illuminating interview w/ Martin S. Indyk…put my mind a wee bit more at ease regarding the Iranian VS USA/Israel conflict. Hope he’s bona-fide. The world needs some common-sense, good natured diplomacy over war-mongering.
N’