Coming soon to Fox? Tony Abbott, the Australian former PM who said climate crisis was ‘absolute crap’
If there was any doubt as to whether Fox Corporation would follow its controversial rightwing trajectory under the sole leadership of Lachlan Murdoch, after his father’s retirement, it ended with the endorsement of former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott to join the Fox board.
Abbott has been a highly controversial figure in Australia for decades, accused of misogyny and climate change scepticism, and once threatening to “shirtfront” Russian president Vladimir Putin.
His nomination, which came a day after Rupert Murdoch announced his retirement, shows Lachlan is “doubling down” on the company’s “right-wing crusading”, critics say.
Abbott served as prime minister for two years from 2013 to 2015, having received a glowing endorsement from Rupert Murdoch on the campaign trail during his successful attempt to oust Kevin Rudd, now Australia’s ambassador to the US. Rudd had previously enjoyed the support of Murdoch’s Australian newspapers.
“Conviction politicians hard to find anywhere. Australia’s Tony Abbott rare exception. Opponent Rudd all over the place, convincing nobody,” Rupert Murdoch tweeted at the time.
His ascension came after a period of brutal efficacy as opposition leader from 2009 to 2013, when he relentlessly attacked Australia’s first female prime minister, Julia Gillard.
Gillard’s famous misogyny speech in 2012 – voted by Guardian readers as the most unforgettable moment of Australian television history – was directed at Abbott.
“I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man,” Gillard said. “I will not… not now, not ever.”
She then listed examples of what she called his “repulsive double standards when it comes to misogyny and sexism”, including him standing in front of protest signs referring to Gillard as former Greens leader Bob Brown’s “bitch” and “ditch the witch”.
But it was Abbott’s attitudes to climate change which eventually caused his downfall.
Abbott notoriously once said that the “so-called settled science of climate change” was “absolute crap”. He has also previously said that climate change is “probably doing good”. Under his leadership, Australia’s carbon price was repealed, as bitter climate change wars continued.
He was deposed as prime minister when he lost a leadership spill to rival Malcolm Turnbull, a moderate, in 2015. He then lost his seat of Warringah in the 2019 election to Zali Steggall, one of a raft of independent candidates promising stronger action on climate change, after 25 years in parliament.
Earlier this year Abbott joined the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK thinktank that is critical of climate change science
****************************************************
The empire strikes back
The editor-in-chief of one of the world's leading academic journals has rebuked a scientist who claimed that research about climate change is rejected if it does not 'support certain narratives'.
Dr Magdalena Skipper, the top editor at Nature, accused Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, of 'poor research practices' that are 'highly irresponsible'.
Brown claimed in an article for The Free Press that editors at Nature and Science - two of the most prestigious scientific journals - select 'climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives' and favor 'distorted' research which hypes up dangers.
He referred to an article he authored which was published in Nature last week and said the study - titled 'Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California' - focused exclusively on climate change and intentionally ignored other key factors. Brown said researchers often 'tailor' their work in such a way to 'support the mainstream narrative'.
In a scathing response, Skipper said: 'The only thing in Patrick Brown's statements about the editorial processes in scholarly journals that we agree on is that science should not work through the efforts by which he published this [study].
'We are now carefully considering the implications of his stated actions; certainly, they reflect poor research practices and are not in line with the standards we set for our journal.'
Skipper said Nature has an 'expectation' that researchers use the most appropriate data, methods and results.
'When researchers do not do so, it goes against the interests of both fellow researchers and the research field as a whole. To deliberately not do so is, at best, highly irresponsible. Researchers have a responsibility for their research which they must take seriously,' she said.
Nature, which is based in London, was founded in 1869 and is one of the world's most cited scientific journals.
'When it comes to science, Nature does not have a preferred narrative,' said Skipper.
The strongly-worded rebuttal came after Brown claimed top scientific journals approach climate change research in the way 'the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause' of wildfires, including the recent devastating fires in Hawaii.
He pointed out research that said 80 percent of wildfires are ignited by humans.
Brown said 'the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.'
He wrote: 'To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change.
'However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.'
Scientists whose careers depend on their work being published in major journals also 'tailor' their work to 'support the mainstream narrative', he said.
'This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper,' he added. 'The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change.'
Skipper's response also pointed to the peer review process for Brown's paper - which was written along with seven other researchers - which highlighted the 'lack of inclusion of variables other than climate change' and said 'the authors themselves argued against including it'.
She also listed three recent examples of research published in Nature that does not 'follow the purported editorial biases alleged by Brown'.
**************************************************
Biden’s American Climate Cult
With a swipe of his pen, Joe Biden unilaterally (and unconstitutionally) created his so-called “American Climate Corps.”
Touting the Biden administration’s ongoing effort to indoctrinate the country into the climate change dogma, White House policy adviser Ali Azaida contended, “This is important because we’re not only opening up pathways to bold climate action, we’re not just opening up pathways to decarbonization, we’re opening up pathways to good paying careers, lifetimes of being involved in the work of making our communities more sustainable, more fair, more resilient in the face of a changing climate.”
In other words, Biden is acting to create an army of climate cult activists, 20,000 strong. Never mind the fact that, constitutionally speaking, he doesn’t have the authority to do so. That’s because Congress shot down this idea last year.
It harkens back to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Civilian Conservation Corps, though notably that was established by Congress. Along with other ecofascists, Varshini Prakash, head of the environmental activist group Sunrise Movement, has been calling on Biden to declare climate change a national emergency. Of this move, Prakash gushed, “This climate corps will conserve our land and water, bolster community resilience, advance environmental justice and tackle the climate crisis.”
Except that it will do no such thing.
In truth the corps will exist to enlist a bunch of young leftists to browbeat the public into acquiescing to the radical Left’s anti-fossil fuel agenda. As the White House’s announcement states, the American Climate Corps would “train young people in clean energy, conservation and climate resilience related skills,” and “streamline pathways into civil service.”
Becoming proselytes of Gaia, this army of Greta Thunbergs will call for the public to increasingly sacrifice their living standards in the face of dire warnings of a global warming apocalypse should these instructions fail to be heeded.
Revealing that in truth this organization is ultimately all about empowering more government in order to advance greater wealth redistribution, the program will advance Biden’s “Justice40 Initiative.” That initiative is a plan to allocate 40% of “federal investment” to “disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution.” In other words, it’s a race-based effort to use the climate change “emergency” as an excuse to implement socialism.
That has always been the goal of the “green” movement. It’s actually red.
At its root, Biden’s American Climate Corps is anti-capitalist, which is why it failed to pass muster with Congress. But never mind that. Biden and the rest of his Democrat colleagues constantly harangue the country over the nonexistent threat that “MAGA Republicans” pose to democracy, though they are more than willing to throw the democratic process aside in order to “save democracy.”
Ignoring the limits the Constitution sets upon the three branches of government in order create a favored program is the mark of a tyrant, not a democratically elected representative of the people whose power is constrained by the rule of law. The more Washington elites like Biden flout the rule of law, the more he encourages the rest of the country to do the same.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/100666-bidens-american-climate-cult-2023-09-22
***********************************************Our moral guardians: Climate activists teach children to send cookie malware to skeptical grandparents
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) is asking supporters to send deceptive links out to friends and family that look like a cookie recipe but embed software cookies instead on the victim’s computer. The digital cookie then pushes green climate videos into their feeds, (as if the ABC news wasn’t loaded enough).
Look out for any links to oneminutecookie.com.
The AYCC gets about $3m in donations, and even visits schools, teaching children how to cheat and lie to save the planet, or something like that. What are good family relationships built on after all, if not deception? What is science if it is not propaganda?
These are all good questions to raise with the children in your life and the schools in your area. Don’t wait for an email to arrive, thank the AYCC for providing the opportunity to start the conversation now.
If the believers are so caring, ethical and moral why are they teaching children it’s OK to deceive family members? Is this the kind of “fair and just” world we want to live in?
Call up schools and the local P&C and ask if they are aware the AYCC — which runs programs in schools — teaches children to fool parents and grandparents and use malware. Are these the kind of family values that belong in our schools? Will the local school guarantee that they will not allow this group to manipulate children?
The Australian exposed their crooked game this week, and traffic to oneminutecookies.com has fallen to zero. So presumably the link trap will change. (The campaign has been put on hold).
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment