The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Plimerphiles: the dangerous delusions of Murdoch hacks’ pet denialist > Comments

Plimerphiles: the dangerous delusions of Murdoch hacks’ pet denialist : Comments

By Lyn Allison, published 11/9/2009

Science has become readily expendable as just another interest to be weighed against those of the big carbon emitters.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
*Flame "bad scientists" - tick, poor old Ian even gets his personal beliefs questioned, as if that cheapens his scientific view, isn't that a little old fashioned Lyn? That's old attack the man not the ball, that you were against in a previous life, how things change when you need an income eh?

*Flame big oil for spending money - tick (really, is $1.6M such a big worry - what's the income of your new organization?)

*Identify how reasonable are the "good scientists" - tick (BTW, Barry Brooks who evidently says, "it's silly to debate the science" then devotes a large part of his website (Government funded) to coach on how to deal or debate skeptics. Is Barry religious, does it matter, if he's a good scientist?)

*Insist that the press is censored - tick, would you like Murdock papers to only reflect his views, or are you in favor of an open press - or is it optional on your whim?

*Accusations of undermining scientific consensus - tick. Science is not democratic, questioning of science should be welcomed, not seen as a crime.

This seems to follow the template of so many eco clubs attacks on open debate.

I heard this one today, and it seems to fit so well ..

A priest, a rabbi and an AGW hysteric walk into a bar ..
Posted by rpg, Friday, 11 September 2009 9:44:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rantings like this do more damage to the climate change pushers, than does the science. I'm afraid the almost rabid rantings of the former Senator make me so grateful that she no longer has any seat in the Parliament.

For instance calling George Pell a "notorious" Catholic. Heck Lyn, I'm sure you know who he is (wears the frock and all).

Those from the "climate change is real" side continue to push the line that if you don't believe it, then you're a heretic. Well Lyn, there are plenty of them around and they seem to be growing. Shall we burn them at the stake? Of course after purchasing the correct carbon offsets of course!

Let there be debate on the matter. It's the expression of democracy and extremely important if the issue is as a important as Lyn says.
Posted by Street, Friday, 11 September 2009 9:45:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A wonderful example of why Lyn Allison and the Democrats are political cadavers.
Posted by KenH, Friday, 11 September 2009 10:49:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Professor Ian Plimer, a mining geologist, is one such scientist happily cashing in on his speaking tours".
He might be crying all the way to the bank. How does Ms Allison know what Professor Plimer feels when he receives payment from his speaking tours? As much as she knows about nearly everything else I guess.
Posted by blairbar, Friday, 11 September 2009 11:09:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article, rational, considered; an insightful analysis of the blatant corporate propaganda machine that is denial.
Posted by E.Sykes, Friday, 11 September 2009 11:35:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It is time to stand up for science, indeed it’s our only hope for survival of our species."

Since when did 'standing up for science' mean 'shouting down the opposition and blindly following the loudest group'? AGW proponents may be right, but they have yet to prove it. And if we're going to play the man and not the ball, how much has Tim Flannery made out of his doomsaying, I wonder?

"further undermining current science and polarising the debate..."

So 'polarising' means 'demonstrating that something has two sides' now, eh? This is a new meaning I haven't encountered before.

Nothing to see here, really; just an AGW fellow-traveller ticking the box to show she's paying attention.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 11 September 2009 1:09:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy