Aussie alarmists in the news

Click for embiggenisation

Two of Australia’s worst alarmists are in the climate science news this morning. Firstly Andrew Glikson launches a nasty attack on sceptics, this time portraying them as “Orwellian”:

Ideologically dominated or totalitarian societies – such as George Orwell’s famous “1984” Ingsoc – are marked by:

  • attempts to alter reality (“2 + 2 = 5 if the party says so”)
  • elimination of history (“He who controls the past, controls the future”)
  • rewriting collective memory (“Oceania is at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia”)
  • The corruption of logic through aleration and elimination of language “Newspeak”
  • mind control (“thought crime”). (source)

Glikson then claims that the science on solar effects and cosmic rays are “unsupported mechanisms” despite the fact that research is still ongoing and very far from conclusive, lumps in the fringe group of Sky Dragon slayers with the majority of sceptics (who accept the scientific basis of the greenhouse effect), and claims that the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than the warming we would have had in the late 20th and early 21st centuries if something hadn’t stopped it. Follow that?

Nowhere is there any introspection as to the horribly corrupted and politicised state of climate science, any criticism of the actions of the IPCC, for example in accepting grey literature where it boosts their pre-conceived agenda of man-made warming, but strangely ignoring peer-reviewed papers which challenge that agenda, or any acceptance that the consensus side of science has been anything other than squeaky clean.

Bishop Hill responds here.

And secondly, our very own Eureka Prize Winning author of the (Un-) Skeptical Science website is the subject of Josh’s pen, for having been discovered (again, by Bishop Hill here and here) rewriting articles but leaving critical comments unchanged, adding responses to those comments in order to give the impression that silly sceptics hadn’t read the articles to which they refer. See image.


  1. I’m sure i remember reading somewhere that Orwell’s ‘ingsoc’ was short for English socialism. So now we have ingsoc, aussoc and soon to be worldsoc.

  2. The 2 articles, one from Andrew Glikson and the other from John Cook, are very different yet very similar, for all the wrong reasons.

    Glikson, in his article, accuses skeptics of using Orwellian ideology to ‘manipulate the climate debate through attempts to alter reality, elimination of history and rewriting collective memory’, amongst others.

    Yet, warmist John Cook of (Un-Skeptical Science) has been exposed by Bishop Hill, thanks to the Wayback Machine, for doing exactly that, “Astonishingly, more than six months after having their errors pointed out to them, the denizens of Skeptical Science rewrote the article and then inserted comments suggesting that their commenters hadn’t read the article properly.

    The irony is laughable!

  3. OMG, these guys are pathetic, they’re like trying to watch some of Algore’s Climate Unreality Project video.
    History tells us a lot about disasters. floods and fire, all the usual things the alarmist tell us is all caused by CO2, but a few hours spent on NLA Trove looking at newspaper articles and historic photos, proves the alarmists wrong (again), with disasters back in the 1820’s and 1850’s, without raised levels of CO2
    The UARS satellite that is about re-enter and burn up, has been subject to solar effects due to increasing E-UV output and solar wind pressure from the yellow star which rises every morning, that has caused it’s unexpected changes in the orbit decay.
    And Mr Glikson and Mr Cook do not accept that the Sun is a major factor in changes to the atmosphere and the climate ?
    Mr Glikson’s opinion on the solar, GCR’s connection to climate suxs. If the Danish National Space Center and the Center for Sun-Climate Research, resulting in a peer reviewed paper on Sun-Climate being published in the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Nov 2010), I think negates any of Mr Glikson’s alarmist opinions.
    Then there is the experimental results from the Cloud experiment at CERN and ongoing, which has cost millions of Euros. Surely this cannot be dismissed as a climate dissenter event.

  4. “No tirades against ‘individualism’ and ‘the ivory tower’, no pious platitudes to the effect that ‘true individuality is only attained through identification with the community’, can get over the fact that a bought mind is a spoiled mind”.
    Orwell, 1946.

  5. So many “if’s”.. Like “if Hitler’s mother had a miscarriage, then no world war 2 ?”. “If Joseph Stalin’s father had a fall before he got home that day, so he had to go to hos[pital instead to to bed with his wife, no communist Russia ?”. “If Mao Tsetung’s mother had a nasty row with his father that night, he probably wouldn’t have been born ?”.
    There’s many others, too.

  6. I’d always thought highly of Glikson, my first impression of him being his debate with Jo Nova. He seemed pretty reasonable for a warmist. I’m then surprised to see him launch a rant such as this. Why does he so aggressively go after skeptics?

    • Andrew Glikson’s position is very clear as he said hereThe world must cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2020 to avert catastrophe…

      Can you imagine how an 80% cut to Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions would affect our economy without any viable energy alternative. It’s absolute lunacy. Tell him he’s dreamin’.

  7. I’m sure anyone who viits Jo Nova’s site remembers Andrew Glikson and Jo having a multi part on the merits of climate science back in 2010. Taking part both on Quadrant on line and at Jo’s blog, it came to an end when despite requesting to continue this debate Dr Glikson dropped out with no explanation.

    For those that might have missed it, links to it all can be found here.

  8. Glickson is the least known, but by far the most extremist, pro-IPCC politician/fundraiser in Australia, using a rabidly partisan website ( to disseminate his propaganda (and censor criciticism of it). It is insulting that he abuses the legacy of Orwell, who wrote books with razor-sharp incision about the rise of totalitarian technocratic elites like Glickson’s, which predictably has lost its fight for polical legitimacy in a democracy like ours, because its edificial creed is not based on evidence and, therefore, fits the classical definition of a scam.

  9. Pot calling Kettle Black? If anything Brown Bob’s Green Fascists and Jooliah’s’ Neo-Stallinist Labor are fitting examples of Orwelian World. Who is hellbent to deny freedom of expression? Who is minority, unelected government gaining power through few morally corrupt sell outs? Who is abusing taxpayers’money? Who is taxing Australians into powerty?
    Who is about to destroy the only productive sector of economy?
    List is endless……

  10. that’s funny , i think the items he is suggesting more closely fit alarmists ,,,
    but what would i really know , i’m just a stupid skeptic ( denier ??? ) after all

%d bloggers like this: