Houellie,

You know I've always enjoyed your "mocktualisation"...still waiting for you to write your book (if you don't consider it too intellectual a pursuit?)

Mollydukes,

Given your contention that you need a higher IQ to understand leftist ideology, why then do the more affluent professional areas vote conservative?

Your reasoning is based on a statistically horribly flawed study by a couple of pseudo intellectuals.

Mollydukes,
I agree that radical/critical thinking takes more intelligence (and courage) than conservative thinking, much more. The trouble is that most leftist thinking isn't radical enough, or radical at all. It's a supplicatory mode of cringing reformism that can't get it through its collective head that concessions won (concessions to genuine equality, and not gay marriage etc.) are only granted during the good times, while the voracious nature of the beast stays the same, but placid. The problem is there is no popular support for genuine change and the vast majority of left and right are conservatives. The so-called left cohort are content to push their various hobby horses and identity politics and flatter themselves they're radicals. The truth is that for the last five decades while the ostensible slow revolution has been eagerly prosecuted by its progressive leftist misfits, the doctrine and reality of neoliberal economics has gradually gained the ascendency. The small l left is like a petulant child that is indulged and and spanked by turns, and it's naive confidence waxes and wanes accordingly. The popular left and right are effectively the same and share a collective brains trust. I despise them both.

SPQR

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Bolt and Monckton are good opinion writers. However, as Turnbull lectures, some people can't discern the difference between opinion and fact – something lost on SM by the way. Indeed, the distinction was one of the Court's findings in the 'Bolt' judgement.

.

Yes Shadow, journalists should be held accountable not to publish factual inaccuracies. Yet, this was what Bolt did. Neither Bolt nor his employer appealed the Court's judgement. Just because your opinion differs with the Court's does not make the Court's judgement wrong, or your opinion right.

There is a wide range of public "opinion" about AGW, especially given the increase in access to the World Wide Web - as Turnbull stated. However, that does not make that public “opinion” right – despite how much you might want it to be.

The vast majority (97%) of scientists who study, research and work at the coal-face of climate science say the planet is warming, human activity is a significant component, and it would be prudent to do something about it. Even a real “climate sceptic” like Roy Spencer differs from Monckton’s “opinions”.

Yes Shadow, people like Monckton (claiming AGW is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated by humankind) and Abbott “it’s crap”, and you, deliberately distort and misrepresent facts to bolster their own ideological agenda.

Freedom of expression infers a responsibility to tell the truth, not to make stuff up – as both Bolt and Monckton are wont to do. Unfortunately, as Turnbull also pointed out, there is an obnoxious growth in the perversion of truth and a concomitant deference to “opinion” – regardless of the truth.

Yes Shadow, opine all you like. However, that does not make your opinions right, something of which you seem incapable of understanding.

By the by:
>> Given your contention that you need a higher IQ to understand leftist ideology, why then do the more affluent professional areas vote conservative? <<

Non sequitur Shadow, typical of fallacious reasoning based on logical fallacy.

BM,

Now you are confused on the facts. That Bolt got some facts wrong was not the main issue in the court case, even if he had all the facts correct, he could still have been prosecuted for causing offence.

If you are going to include politician's utterances, you could include Juliar's no carbon tax promise, Labor's promise not to touch the health care rebate etc etc.

Mollydukes et al,
allow me to draw your attention to this specimen of Australia's state of journalistic enlightenment, and OLO's editorial rigour: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13238&page=0