Tedious sceptic bashing (and not funny either)
I’ve waited a long time for this – an opportunity to sink my teeth into Richard Glover, another ABC lefty who presents the Drive programme on ABC local radio in Sydney. Unfortunately, living in Sydney I often have the misfortune to listen to Glover, and whilst most of his stuff is harmless enough, his comedy-based Thank god it’s Friday section from 5 – 6 every Friday is toe-curling in the extreme. The trouble with Glover is that he thinks he’s a natural comedian, but in reality, he’s about as funny as haemorrhoids, as will be evidenced shortly.
So it gives me enormous pleasure to relate that he’s also a climate alarmist, or at least someone completely unsympathetic to any sceptical viewpoint [What a surprise. Yet another ABC lefty who’s a climate alarmist to boot. Knock me down with a feather. Add them to the list – Ed], writing a tedious piece in the Sydney Moonbat Herald dissing sceptics, entitled The Lara Bingle of Climate Change. If you don’t immediately get the reference (I certainly didn’t), he’s referring to the IPCC’s Himalayan glaciers error, which, as he puts it, “gets more attention than it deserves”. Right.
Do climate-change sceptics have the same attitude to other pieces of expert advice? When their car develops a fault and the local mechanic says the brake pads are shot, do they seek a second opinion? And having been told by the second mechanic that, yes, the brake pads are shot, do they then trawl around town until on the 99th visit, they strike a mechanic who says “no, the brake pads are fine”? And then driving at high speed up the F3, do they entrust their lives to this last opinion?
No. Because it would be mental.
What happens when Maurice Newman, climate agnostic and ABC chairman, goes to the doctor? Does he storm from the office when they diagnose chickenpox and seek second, third and 99th opinions until he finds a doctor who will give him the all clear? And does he then decry the first 98 doctors as victims of “group-think”?
No. Because it would be mental.
This kind of reasoning is so childish as to be laughable. Because the science of climate is obviously completely equivalent to checking whether your brake pads are worn down, or whether you have spots and a temperature, isn’t it? And then having bowled us over with the power of his logic, the ad homs begin:
As a non-scientist, I cannot directly evaluate the evidence for anthropomorphic [can’t even get the word right – Ed] global warming; I cannot clamber up a glacier and take readings, just as, when I visit the doctor, I can’t check my own prostate (even though, according to some readers, I’ve spent a lifetime with my head stuck up there [and those, dear reader, are the only true words spoken in this entire article – Ed]).
I can, however, evaluate the debating techniques used by both sides. And here, the global-warming sceptics are very, very annoying.
I’m sorry, I can’t go on. As I’m writing this, I can feel the very will to live draining away, so if you really want to read it, go here. I’d rather spend my time doing something more pleasant, like have my wisdom teeth extracted without anaesthetic.
Australian Climate Madness 
I’m happy to say that in my part of Australia there is an ABC local radio announcer that puts to air pieces that are sceptical of AGW.
Yaarh! I just read the specious piece of drivel! Now I have to go and vomit. If only I’d taken the wisdom teeth option instead…
Sydney 702 appears to have become a personal marketing arm for ABC presenters. I wonder if “Glover Inc” pays fees for use of the public broadcaster as a personal marketing vehicle – how many times for instance are listeners to be subjected to tales from the mud brick house?
At Sydney 702 – the nepotism is of Ugandan proportions… and the content is the same quality.
Sink your teeth into Richard Glover? Teeth? With teeth like these you would have trouble with a glass of milk. By the way, do check on ‘anthropomorphic’ before you risk any more damage to your little teethy weethys.
@Dave: You prove my point. Hurling insults is so much easier than cogent reasoning.
Well as you say the comparisons he makes are hardly a basis to change my mind, I can hear when my brakes need changing, i can see when they need changing, or does this idiot have an amazing power to see & hear Co2?, also the fact that alot of repair shops tend to rip you off here in the U,K so most people dont trust them,
so comparing the climate scientists with grease monkeys is about right as they both rely on making their money by trying to baffle you with B/S.
re response 6:
Hence your cool and well reasoned comments on Mr Glover? What was your point exactly, Simon?
@Dave: So I guess you think Glover’s arguments are well reasoned? Comparing climate science with inspecting brake pads? Sorry, that deserves ridicule. Next.
Sad that we have so very few intelligent media people.
And in the US, we have Danny Glover spouting agw nonsense as well.
I never knew danny had a white brother.
“What a surprise. Yet another ABC lefty whose a climate alarmist…” Well, since we’re poking fun at “anthropomorphic” instead of “anthropogenic” I’d point out that you were attempting to say “lefty who is,” the contraction for which is “who’s.” “Whose” is possessive.
You were the one who started with the insults, then when you were called on it you lamely attempted to justify it. I got here by following a second tier link, but it’s a 10th tier site.
@Rob: You just don’t get it do you? Glover “started” it with his sceptic-bashing. If you think it’s a 10th tier site, hopefully you won’t visit again with your 10th tier comments.