sonofgloin

I jumped ahead, scroll down to:

"The phony debate on climate change"

http://tinyurl.com/How-the-media-gets-it-wrong

Bonmot

Thanks for the links to "The Conversation" a much needed dose of sanity in a world of monkctons.

And a fine example of freedom of speech at work.

Well Sonofgloin, by the time we need to worry about AGW, we will be
using very little oil and coal will be too expensive to burn and make
electricity with it.

Watch the loss of interest in global warming when we are paying $8 a
litre for the stuff.
If the predictions about food shortages are anywhere near correct AGW
will be yesterdays fish and chips wrappers.

Let me make a prediction;
Christine Milne will be complaining that the government should be
threatening to sink the ships that are bringing thousands of illegal
immigrants. The environment cannot support all those people.

Bob Brown will speak on the doorstep of his nursing home that the
coal mines should be closed.

Kevin will be contesting Julia for the leadership of the Greens.

Wayne Swan will inject $2 Trillion into the economy.
Barnaby Joyce will interject "Meow !".

Green MPs will request that the government provide rickshaws instead
of tandem bicycles for the government drivers, err riders.

And you think I am joking ?

@Morgan
<< However, the 40 academics have every right to express their point of view via a petition if they wish, which is also an aspect of their 'freedom of speech'.>>

They were doing more than expressing their opinion. They were seeking to deny Monckton the wherewithal to express his in front of their students. Which says a lot about their confidence that the case for AGW is certain and settled.

@ Bonmot,

I did a quick reconnoitre of your latest link : http://tinyurl.com/How-the-media-gets-it-wrong
Reading some of the letters is better value than reading the contrived commentary.I particularly commend other readers to the postings of James Szabadics BSc & Toby James --most interesting, and not always favorable to Bonmot’s preferred narrative ( Never mind --- in perfect world they will be all edited out –so as not to mislead and confuse the plebs)

@Bazz

Absolutely hilarious. Bob Brown giving a press conference from the nursing home steps – ROFL

Bonmot, this from the spin psychologist and star gazer that penned your link (http://tinyurl.com/How-the-media-gets-it-wrong)

>>We know that atmospheric CO&#8322; is increasing due to humans. We know that this CO&#8322;, while being just a small fraction of the atmosphere, has an important influence on temperature.<<

Then this rubbish:

>> The consensus opinion of the world’s climate scientists is that climate change is occurring due to human CO&#8322; emissions. The changes are rapid and significant, and the implications for our civilisation may be dire. The chance of these statements being wrong is vanishingly small<<

Bonmot your psychologist and your star gazer said our emissions were relatively small, astoundingly small I would say. Other than a toxin I am struggling to find scenarios where 6 parts of anything has an effect against the existing tens of thousands of billions. I prefer to run with these facts.

>>Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
"The oceans contain 37,400 billion giga tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 billion giga tons. The atmosphere contains 720 billion giga tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 26 giga tons, not hundreds, not thousands, and certainly not tens of thousands of BILLIONS. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce." <<

All I will say regarding Stephan Lewandowski is that he is an enterprizing little bugger, him a psychologist finding a way to make money from Climate Change/ Global Warming/ take your pick, by examining the psychology of denial, he and the star gazer are on the gravy train, give me facts not stooges.

Bazz I got a laugh from your post, thanks.

SPQR

>> They were doing more than expressing their opinion. They were seeking to deny Monckton the wherewithal to express his in front of their students. Which says a lot about their confidence that the case for AGW is certain and settled. <<

Professor Brian Martin (wrt to freedom of speech) has a valid point: David Irving is a well-known historian and is widely seen as a Holocaust denier. He twice visited Australia in the 1980s, receiving relatively little public attention.
Since the 1990s, the Australian government has denied Irving entry to the country, resulting in much more media comment than if he had been allowed to visit and speak.

Ergo, I think ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton should be allowed to express his unqualified opinions.

[Btw, Gina Rinehart invited Monckton to speak at a mining conference not run by the University. The mining conference was not targeted to the students of academics (from all over) as you seem to think.]

Good that you read “how the media gets it wrong”, albeit if only for a quick reconnoitre.

As long as comments comply with The Conversation’s “community standards” they will not be “edited out”, despite the contrary views of your favourites, SPQR.

That’s what free speech is about in our democratic society - unlike Andrew Bolt blocking my URL so I can’t comment on his outrageous remarks in the Herald Sun.