Over at The Drum, Clive Hamilton begins a five part series on climate change denialism, beginning with a look at cyber-bullying.
Previously on LP: Communicating climate science.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
Wow, some of those emails… I would definitely be getting the police involved.
Why does it not surprise me that Graeme Bird is prominent in the comments thread for Clive’s article?
Note article by Jeffrey Sachs on the methods of the anti-climate change lobby: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science
PN@2 – I guess Catallaxy wasn’t far right enough for him so he thought he’d try a more receptive audience on an ABC site.
Whoa. That’s ugly and scary. Good thing we’re gonna be brave but not foolhardy. Red that again folks. Brave but not foolhardy, resolute and peaceful because the uglies are baiting the trap.
Lest we forget:
Brenda Hean http://www.abc.net.au/tv/rewind/txt/s1173814.htm (new show about her death this week on the ABC ?Thursday night?);
Judi Bari: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judi_Bari
And all the mudered activists in South and Latin America and eveywhere else not least of all the IWW members of the USA in the 1920′s for which see the recently deceased Howard Zinn’s ‘Peoples History of the USA’.
And Karen Silkwood.
Absolutely Paul. I would welcome others’ contribution to a memorial list of our murdered heroes as we recall them.
That comment thread is depressing.
I wish broadsheet papers still had investigative units that could actually get to the bottom of who’s orchestrating these campaigns.
What’s astonishing is people comparing being called a ‘denier’ with emails threatening to gang rape your family. Difference much?
isn’t it wilful? Ironically demonstrates Hamilton’s own points.
That comment thread seems almost top prove the point he was trying to make LOL!
It’s depressing, isn’t it? As Sachs mentions in the Guardian article quoted above, these nasty tactics aren’t new and were used in the campaign over tobacco and CFCs and in other cases where the findings of science proved inconvenient for powerful corporations.
What’s changed is the speed and variety of our communication systems that allow these sinister forces to threaten and intimidate and lie and deceive and seek to deliberately mislead public opinion.
Quite simply it is a perversion of democracy and demands action by independent journalists to expose the links between rich corporations and hate groups. The trouble is, of course, the mainstream media is part of the problem.
It’ll be the usual suspects: Scaife, Walton, Exxon, Alcan etc. RW activists in the USA have always had buckets and buckets of money. But knowing exactly who gives how much won’t help though. The argument will be won or lost on the quality and quantity of the propaganda. Usual politics.
(On the other hand, Heartland Institute which is one of the biggest anti-AGW campaigners stopped releasing its donor list in 2007 saying: “by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue.”)
This sort of stuff is not unusual. Some time ago when I was the contact person for Socialist Alliance in Armidale (which I am no longer) I was regularly receiving abusive phone calls late at night. There are a lot of right wing dingbats out there who are always teetering on the edge of fascistic violence. Its part of their ideology and extends to a whole range of issues, climate denialism being the current fad. Here, Nick Minchin has got a lot to answer for his bizarre comments on 4 Corners last year. (I don’t take the powerless like Lord Monckton very seriously.)
Those abusive emails are totally gross.
The most noticeable thing is the type of language used. It is language from the gutter, and totally OTT aggression. More like what you might expect from a bikie gang, than from reasonable intelligent people.
As Clive Hamilton says about the researchers and journos who are targets: “Their courage under fire stands in contrast to the cowardice of the anonymous emailers.”
I hope the police really get after the guys that are writing those threats. There must be some legal restraint on targetted intimidation, especially with threats of violence?
Well you can’t change some people’s minds, especially on this issue. Why do they dig their heels in if the end result is a healthier and cleaner planet? I am over arguing this debate. I am convinced there is no convincing the deniers. Perhaps it’s time for the politicians to drop the ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ tags, and just act for the environment – surely it’s the result that matters.
The denying scientists should accompany their denials with lists of actions to benefit the environment that they believe appropriate. I would be surprised if any said to do nothing, or as little as possible. Since environmental policy and debate is very much tied up in climate change, the deniers presently don’t appear to see the need to offer a legitimate alternative based on any alternative hypotheses – Abbott’s so-called policy being case in point.
It seems that science, as usual, goes out the window with absolutists who ‘know.’
years ago I had a friend who was involved in the campaign to introduce compulsory student unionism to the uni in (i think) Armidale. She and her comrades trooped up there from the city, and stumbled into a concerted right-wing campaign to intimidate them out of the town, a campaign which did include late-night attacks from cars (utes in every instance) which did involve subsequent trips to hospital.
I don’t know if the right is still so thuggish these days but these kinds of threats may still need to be taken seriously and not just seen as right-wing posturing. I wonder what would happen in the media if one of these scientists did actually get assaulted?
Not that I remotely for one second want to either encourage or laugh off the threat of violence, but there sure is a lot of huffing and puffing from those little shits without any genuine action. Thankfully they all are keyboard cowards.
We are making a mistake when we see resistance to climate action flowing from climate skepticism. In many cases it is the other way round. Climate skepticism is merely a tactic to promote climate inaction and a very good tactic too. It is just too easy to divert the science argument to a meaningless statistical analysis of warming in the last 10 years or the extent of medieval warming or what such and such a graph really means.
It may be smarter to start re-labeling the skeptics as “climate action opponents” because this is what most of them appear to be. Sure there may be a few who oppose climate action because they have decided that the science suggests that the AGW claims are grossly exaggerated. However, some climate action opposition will be coming from individuals who would prefer to live the good life now and let the future take care of itself. Also, as numerous commentators here have said there will be fossil carbon corporations and governments of states with large fossil carbon extraction industries who see climate action as a real threats to their profits, employment levels and tax revenue.
The climate action opponent attack fronts include:
1. The risks are exaggerated:
a. Climate science is grossly exaggerating the effect of rising greenhouse gas levels on climate.
b. The impact of temperature increases and higher CO2 levels are exaggerated.
2. The action required to slow climate change will destroy our country’s/the world’s economy.
On each of these fronts what is being put forward by climate action supporters is complex. There is the inherently complex science and complex action plans based on ETS or carbon taxes. There is not a great deal that can be done about the science at this stage although some of the communication might be improved.
On the other hand there are things that can be done about the action plan. It is pointless getting sucked into arguments about long term targets. All that is doing is convincing people that it is all too hard. What we need at the moment is a simple action plan for the next 5 to 10 years. An action plan that can at least convince people that there are easy things that can be done to at least slow down the rate of climate change until we are better prepared to do something about it.
The root of all this denialism lies in the Judeo Christian belief set.
Just as Galileo and Copernicus copped it from the rabid fascist kiddie fiddlers in the Catholic church so the rightist rabid rednecks want to dish it out to global warming science.
“Hell these pointy headed scientists are just making all this stuff up just so they can rule the world”. We all know that God gave us total dominion over the planet, it says so in the Bible.
It has always been thus folks, rouse the rabble and destroy the scientists. The Christian mob who slaughtered Hypatia are no different from the fundamentalist sects who put God above science.
It is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Huggy.
sg & wilful, it’s relevant here to recall Graham Richardson’s recollection of his experiences during the dispute in 1987-88 over World Heritage Listing of the Far North Queensland Wet Tropics and the consequent cessation of logging. When he went to Ravenshoe to talk to the locals Richardson was attacked by a mob of 500, with one individual in particular standing out as the ringleader. Later in the course of the dispute Richardson was at a meeting in Canberra on the issue, and said ringleader and four of his associates came to Canberra to gatecrash the meeting. They got no further than halfway up the stairs of the relevant building before being stared down by a single AFP officer of below average height. Having only four, rather than 499, associates with him seemed to have a salutary effect on the ringleader’s levels of fortitude.
sg @ 18,
The rightwing students in Armidale have always been particularly bad. If my limited experience with them as the member of a political organisation only tangentially associated with the uni at that time is any indication, they haven’t changed much. The Young Libs behaviour up here during VSU was so bad they got into the national papers. Lately, though, they seemed to be restricting themselves to stupid phone calls at 1 am in the morning.
More to the point, all this is a result of Howard’s sly encouragement of the loony right, continued by his successors. What a legacy!
huggybunny is historically sweeping on the relationship between scientific process and Christianity (16-17th century and the formation of the Royal Society) and sociologically out of touch with the wide support from the christian churches, including evangelicals in the United States for action on climate change.
Paul B #23, are you refering to the time the UNE Liberal students made the national press over their campaign to abolish womens’ suffrage?
Is there a Climate Change Deniers equivalent of GetUp that mobilises foresters and coal miners to email scientists each time they publish AGW articles?
huggy, you’re smarter than that.
PN @ 25,
I’d missed that one. VSU was about to be introduced and they got elected in a majority to the UNESA on a slogan that went something like “Greenies are Scum.” They then got control of the UNE Union (which I think had to be put into receivership or something at the end of their term because of their brilliant management skills), wasn’t at uni, after my time. Their policy for both organisations was do nothing. Run them into the ground. Never be in the office and, whenever possible ignore all media requestsd for comment. They scrapped the Gay Liason Officer, I think, and elected a Mens’ Officer in their place. These bright sparks are probably right now working themselves into positions of power in the Liberal Party.
Sorry to say this, but it seems a bit ironic to me that those on this thread who decry the use of abuse against AGW advocates themselves employ a very specific term of abuse against those who qustion the absolute rightness of AGW science and politics – viz: ‘denialists’, a term used quite calculatedly for its direct association with Holocaust denialism and Neo-nazism.
People in glass houses….
I don’t know why you’d lump foresters in with coal miners… (but lets not derail the thread).
Let’s not derail the thread, but let’s also point out that neither the Mining and Energy Division, nor the Forestry Division, of the CFMEU have ever promoted climate change denialism.
JohnD @20, perhaps part of the answer is for the scientists and journos to collate and publish all the abusive “arguments” from the “skeptics”? Just as Clive Hamilton is indeed doing in his article.
The quality of these “arguments” is so very poor that, subjected to broad daylight, it will surely be seen by most people for what it is? Even by people who are very time-poor, and inclined to accept the general tone of what they read in the media or see on TV, rather than checking the data for themselves.
The scientists who are the subject of these attacks need to coordinate and compile a dossier of all the attacks, and publish the lot of it. It will make ugly reading, no doubt.
Most people are reasonable human beings, and they will probably come to the appropriate conclusions…
Mark Bahnisch recently told us the reams of economic studies that demonstrate a link between min. wages and unemployment are bollocks because they are based on modelling, yet without batting an eyelid he heaps scorn on those who doubt AGW, even though the evidence for such is based on , well, modelling.
I have no doubt AGW is a real and present danger but I do doubt Mark Bahnisch’s credibility on this issue.
erm, salient, all Mark Bahnisch did was post a link to Clive Hamilton’s post. I can’t really see how you’d attack his credibility on this basis.
@ 29, Rob, that’s a false equivalence you’re asserting.
Here’s a sample of the kind of abuse that climate campaingers receive, from Hamilton’s article:
If you think that calling somone a “denialist” is equivalent to the screed above, well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Go cry, emo kid.
Besides, “denialist” is not a term of abuse. It’s an accurate descriptive label.
Here’s how it works:
If you are unaware of something, you are ignorant (no shame in that).
If something has been explained to you, but you ignore it, you are wilfully ignorant.
If, after ignoring previous explanations, you continue to propound the same discredited arguments in support of your view, you are a denialist.
We are all entitled to our opinions Rob, but we are not entitled to our own facts. Denialist is a perfectly valid label for a person who behaves in the manner described by the above declension.
Mercurius @35, for some reason, the comparison arguments of Rob and fellow travellers on Clive Hamilton’s post remind me of the Monty Python skit about the witch, and weighing the witch.
I can’t remember exactly how it goes, but the baying lynch mob left an indelible impression. Logical comparison of alternative proposals didn’t seem to be their strong suit.
Does anyone remember how that skit went?
“Besides, “denialist” is not a term of abuse. It’s an accurate descriptive label.”
I think you’ve made my point for me, Mercurius.
Elise, the skit was that if the suspect floated like a duck she was a witch. I’m not quite sure which side of this debate that favours. But it was a great sketch.
The essence of the Get up campaigns is no different to that which is being complained about here (perhaps with less overt threats of violence though)
Face it There are just as many AGW nutters who want to “go the biff” with anyone who speaks out against the AGW orthodoxy as there are people doing what Hamilton complains about.
Rob, you’re absolutely correct about the deliberate nature of the denialist label. That’s because there is a moral equivalence between Holocaust deniers and climate change deniers. Oh, and what Mercurius said about wilful ignorance.
@Mercurius, from ignorant through willfully ignorant to denialist you left out the other stage of just plain stupid.
I think the thuggish behaviour by denialists could be taken as a good sign. Clearly they are becoming very fearful and desperate as mounds of AGW evidence accumulate in their brains becoming ever more difficult to push aside and ignore, the disarray and confusion leading to these violent outbursts.
And these violent outbursts are counter productive as this sort of behaviour always is, the average person abhoring violence and the majority of average people knowing climate change needs to be addressed.
We just have to keep plugging away with the truth, using this latest monstering by denialists to hone skills and evolve to keep ahead of them. The really sad thing is that AGW is only one symptom of the problem while the more serious symptoms go largely unaddressed and the problem itself goes completely unaddressed and that is too many people consuming more than the planet can sustain.
@33 – Salient Green, if you wanted to have a serious discussion about epistemology, Bayesian probability, modelling, and stuff, we could, but I doubt this is the thread for it.
Mark @42, nah, forget all that stuff, just watch it all from the outside looking in. From my perspective, stuffing around with climate change as we are is like treating cancer with antibiotics. Sure they help with some of the secondary infections but the cancer goes on.
We don’t disagree on the salience of the issue, Salient Green! But you must understand that if someone challenges my credibility, it’s not unusual that I would offer to respond to that…
Rob, I think the point of the witch sketch (it clearly escaped you) was the complete irrationality. It’s all about ignoring evidence and failing to construct a coherent argument.
You’ve scored an own goal.
Für Elise
Mark, it seems that defending one’s credibility is what they want one to do, ad nauseum. It distracts from the real issue. Mitigating AGW while population and consumption continue to grow is quite impossible in the practical sense.
Climate scientists need to have a holistic view to be credible and for any of them to focus entirely on climate change as the greatest threat to our existence is the great weakness of their position. They badly need to put climate change in perspective and that is a nasty but definitely secondary effect of TOO BLOODY MANY HUMANS POOPING IN THE NEST.
While you’re quite correct, Salient @ 47, I can’t think of any morally acceptable solutions to that problem.
@47 – Salient Green, I was responding to *your* questioning of *my* credibility @33. But let’s leave it there.
Ooops, I’ve gone back and looked at that comment and it was from ‘Salient’ not ‘Salient Green’. I think I’ve assumed wrongly that the two were the same person! My apologies!
I think Kelvin Thompson has outlined a morally acceptable 14 point plan to stabilise then reduce population.
http://www.kelvinthomson.com.au/speechesdocs/091111%20Population%20Reform%20Paper%20ac.pdf
I know I will be told if there’s something unacceptable in it.
Not a problem Mark it was still an interesting discussion, got me thinking and on to one of favorite causes.:-)
Good, good!
Salient Green, thanks for posting that pdf. I will go through it tomorrow.
I have recently been to Clive Hamilton’s article, and there are 707 comments on it, too many to go through. I can only guess that there are many comments that are just as sick as the emails that Clive wrote about in the article.
No, wbb, the argument will be won on the quality of the science — not on your efforts to dismiss The Heartland Institute and other organizations on the basis of their funding.
The alarmists refuse to allow the focus to remain on the issue, prefering instead to attack as industry-funded “skeptics” or “deniers” those who present a sound-science basis for their disagreement with the computer models that predict warming. The work of these “skeptical” scientists is, however, at least as credible as that offered by the government-funded Climategate scandal-ridden scientists.
The science is settled, PR. In any case, we are not talking about the science, but about the politics, about how the denialists are resorting to violent threats because they are slowly realizing they have lost the debate. What have you got to say about the ugliness coming from your side of the debate?
Salient Green @ 51 (sorry – same confusion as Mark), Thompson’s paper provides a solution of sorts for Australia, but the problem is global. (Also, Australia is already over-populated so stabilising at 26M doesn’t give us a sustainable population.)
I think it will solve itself, but none of us will like the way that happens.
You are correct David that it does not go far enough. I see it as a transition policy which is far from offensive and hopefully weans people off the idea of population growth being good, necessary, inevitable and unavoidable, preparing them for the hard reality of our unsustainability and the tougher measures needed.
This policy seems to me to be a huge leap forward in that a Labor politician is publicly going against the policy of the rest of the party, states and federal which seem to be captured by the Growth lobby.
If the science is sound then I am sure these scientists will be submitting (or possibly already have submitted) their research to the usual scientific journals for peer-review.
Thanks PR, I needed a good laugh!
John Quiggin on a closely related theme is worth reading.
Meanwhile, here’s the latest report on Antarctica from the communist conspirators at the US Geological Survey.
Indeed, Salient Green. Despite my pessimism, I think Kelvin Thompson is one of the few politicians who gets it, and his paper is a valuable contribution.
In a way, it’s good that he trod on his dick before the last election – I don’t think he’d have been able to publish it from Cabinet.
DI(nr) @45 and 46, thanks, that was the skit I was thinking of…!
And yes, it seems that Rob completely missed the meta-message. He would have been right at home with the mob in the skit.
Silkworm,
we are not talking about the science, but about the politics, about how the denialists are resorting to violent threats
This is as opposed to the lies, verbal violence and abuse meted out by alarmists to anyone who admires scientific integrity and expects it from the core group of climate scientists? It happens on this site on a regular basis.
Your own use of the abusive word denier’ puts you into the same category as those you excoriate. Like wise your use of the nonsense term “The science is settled” to try and shut down discussion when the reality is climate science is only in its infancy.
There are some very unpleasant people out there in the world, people who see abuse as an appropriate response to anything they don’t like. And these people are be found on both sides of the dabate. There are a range of people on both sides of the debate (and yes, the debate rages, it is not over) who demonstrate a range of responses. Any claim that alarmists as a group are any better in this respect than sceptics is a fantasy.
PolicyReporter @55: “…“skeptics” or “deniers” those who present a sound-science basis for their disagreement with the computer models that predict warming.
The interesting thing about most of the “skeptics” and “deniers” is their preoccupation with a very limited range of the available data indicating climate change.
We can all argue about modelling until the cows come home. Models are only ever a simplified construction of what the modellers think are the main variables. They indicate trends, IFF you have correctly identified the dominant variables and their interactions.
The bottom line is reality, as Paul Norton indicates @62. Never mind the modelling, what is actually occurring?
While the “skeptics” and “deniers” work themselves into a lather over the modelling and cherry-picking a few segments of data that support their argument, we can measure climate change happening before our eyes in MANY different fields of science.
How long can they stand on their sand castles, cover their eyes, and say the tide isn’t coming in, it isn’t, it isn’t, it isn’t…???
If the science is sound then I am sure these scientists will be submitting (or possibly already have submitted) their research to the usual scientific journals for peer-review.
This is the communications problem we all face now.
After the manner in which the (self described) hockey team have appointed themselves gatekeepers for the peer review process, and the IPCC have appointed themselves final arbiter in evaluating external criticism, as well as citing ridiculous sources, I am afraid peer review in the climate sciences is no longer regarded as being of much value.
To alarmists the idea of peer review remains a gold standary, but to sceptics it has become a bad joke.
Which just goes to show:
@clh
This soundbite only goes to further demonstrate that you don’t understand Fact One about peer review. Peer review is not a gold standard, peer review is a minimum standard in the scientific process.
Once a peer reviewed journal article is published it faces further challenge at any time from anyone who cares to examine its premises, its hypothesis, its methodology and its results. For the challengers to get their work published, they also have to pass the minimum standards required by peer review, which is essentially a basic level of rigour and transparency.
If challengers can’t even pass the basic hurdles of peer review, then they’ve really got nothing.
@clh
What’s abusive about describing a tactic when one sees it in use? Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship – Denialism: it’s a tactic, not an ideology.
Tigtog,
Yes, I know that, but peer review is still spoken about as if it confered some sort of authority on the paper. You are right, it is just a review process and the reviewers are just human beings, with all that implies. However, this doesn’t alter the reality that the hockey team debased the peer review process, such as it is, where it suited them and they could get away with it.
Warmists need to recognise this is the reality and devise a response, rather than deny it happened.
Deflection attempt noted, clh. You didn’t address this part of my earlier comment:
Get your challenges past peer review, then we’ve got something to debate.
Sigh,
So reality doesn’t become real reality until it has been peer reviewed? Does Prof. Phil Jones acknowledgement that the planet has shown no statistcally significant warming trend for the last fifteen years get put in abeyance until he, I, you, or someone else submits it as a paper to the debased peer review process he was a part of?
Sounds to me as if the demand for peer review is a defence mechanism, or a debating tactic, rather than a positive contribution to discussion.
@clh, 73 – Yes, and you have to study quite a few years to hang a shingle up as a GP or an engineer. And you have to pass a test to get a driver’s licence. And you can’t get into most university courses without some kind of accreditation. And if you go in the water you have to, like, learn to swim. Life’s a bitch, ain’t it!
clh, you’ve already quoted two very brutally distorted untruths from the climate emails saga, two untruths which have been readily disputed and dissected. If you can’t be bothered being skeptical about the lies that your denialist buddies and their paymasters are feeding you, why you should you expect anyone to take seriously your claims to sensible skepticism about climate change itself?
When you learn to sort truth from lies in the propaganda your denialist chums are feeding you, then maybe it would be worth the time arguing about the actual science. I doubt we’ll ever reach that stage.
We’ve just had an excellent example of how it is done in real science. Authors Mark Siddall et al have just withdrawn this paper according to an article in The Guardian.
I haven’t checked out there in the anti-AGW universe, but they are probably crowing over it, especially since the paper supported the IPCC take on sea level rise.
You’ll note that the authors thanked Messrs Vermeer and Rahmstorf for “bringing these issues to our attention”. That’s how things should be done. You won’t find it in the contrarian literature.
BTW Vermeer and Rahmstorf know a thing about ses level rise and recently had a paper published suggesting sea level could be 0.8 to 1.8m by 2100 according to the SRES scenarios, with two provisos. One is that emissiopns are within the range of the IPCC scenarios, whereas they are actually tracking above.
Secondly, the ice sheets don’t go nonlinear.
Sooner or later, I think, the anti-AGW mob will be mugged by reality. I’ll be more than delighted if they aren’t.
Actually, tigtog, denialism is ideological. The deniers know that the environment is a left issue, leftist are always wrong, therefore there is no problem.
It’s a neat syllogism. Aristotle would be proud of them. It’s almost like: all swans are white, that swan is black, therefore it must actually be a crow.
DI (nr),
You fall into their rhetorical trap if you mistake the the ideology that motivates the denialism as the matter which has to be rebutted/addressed. It’s better to deal simply with the tactics as laid out in the linked post and the Denialism Blog articles it summarises.
tigtog, I agree that we need to engage with the tactics rather than the ideology that informs them, but it’s a good idea to keep the ideology in the back of your mind, and to let the fuckers know you’re onto their game. I’m sure that unsettles them, which is why they keep getting more and more hysterical.
On another mission I’ve just come across this post by Eli Rabett on what he might term denialist methodology. They don’t seem to care about the quality of the science they are putting up against AGW science as long as it creates doubt and confusion. Hence they use different papers in different contexts with equal enthusiasm, seemingly unaware that they contradict each other.
Michael Tobis has found the right words: The incoherence of denialism.
The science of AGW isn’t settled, but there is a coherent paradigm of well-established knowledge. New findings elaborate the paradigm, but we await something that will overturn it, which would be genuinely exciting. So far it hasn’t come.
Gavin’s comment is also salutary:
sg @75: “…lies that your denialist buddies and their paymasters are feeding you…”
Surely we are long overdue for a Watergate type of expose by a couple of dedicated investigative journalists?
Who was behind the theft of the emails in the UK?
Who is coordinating the abusive and threatening emails to scientists?
Who exactly is paying the likes of Monckton and mates, to spread confusion and disinformation?
There must be a money trail at the bottom of it all, from vested interests. Why doesn’t someone follow that trail? We suspect who might be involved. Why not nail it for sure, and expose it?
The scoop would be a bigger story than Watergate, and would sell worldwide.
Where is my money?
Cheque or EFT is fine if you can’t do cash.
Elise @ 81 said
That won’t be possible in Australia because the media organisations have reduced the numbers of journalists on salary. The ABC News is put together by freelancers. Look at the age of the on the scene reporters. Read Margaret Symons on The Content Makers at Crikey see http://blogs.crikey.com.au/contentmakers/2010/02/23/freelancers-should-not-work-for-free-the-union-acts/
The Age has almost no Melbourne reporters and relies on wire services to fill the paper.
You are waiting for Al Jazeera to break this type of news because News Corporation is the home of climate deniers.
Well this explains a lot of what is going on. Ive recently come across someone who is being paid to write for a blog site. I haven’t got the skinny on this yet but am hoping to find out who is paying and why.
Mods: please delete immediately prior post in favour of this:
Brian said:
This is one of the reasons for refusing their chosen appellation: “sceptic”. They are naysayers, or contrarians, or special pleaders or delusionals or intellectual nihilists or agnosophists or just plain ignorant cranks. They are not sceptics because sceptics are careful to specify what they are and are not sceptical about and can describe how their scepticism fits into the broader accepted usages of the field and developments in knowledge that impinge upon their claims.
BilB #84, perhaps it is I? In the past a commenter here accused (more like stated) that I was a paid commenter. I couldn’t be bothered digging up the screenshot, but the rationale used, though plausible, was quite a laugh.
It isn’t you SATP. It is someone I know, who let slip in a brief conversation. Now I have to find a pretext to ask who and why.