George Orwell, I presume?

ImageThis little blog site is very modest.  On a busy day, it tends to get around 50 hits or so. Less on a quiet day.  Do I care? Yes, I might.  Because if I get 15,000 hits a year (that is 41 hits a day) then I get to be censored, and potentially have to go to prison if I say anything unfavourable about climate change and then refuse to retract it.

That, at any rate, is what happens if the Australian government implements the recommendations of its new report by Ray Finkelstein. It is the way of this government to get such reports written by individuals with the same political leanings as the government, and then to legislate accordingly, so this is not so far-fetched as it might seem.  One of the main purposes of the proposed new censorship board is to prevent journalists and bloggers from saying anything negative about the carbon tax.  The report proceeds on the assumption (despite all the evidence now in that the sceptics have been right all along about the IPCC’s models being just plain wrong) that it is unfair or unbalanced to point out in public that the government’s policy on so-called global warming is barking mad, dangerous, neo-religious dogma.

You might think this is a joke, but unhappily it is not. Here are some extracts from the report:

1.6          Concern was also expressed by several politicians and others that certain of News Limited’s papers (The Australian and the Daily Telegraph) were biased in their reporting on particular issues. Climate change and the National Broadband Network were given as examples[1].

4.38           … in news reporting it is expected by the public, as well as by professional journalists, that the coverage will be fair and accurate.

4.39           Nonetheless, there is a widely-held public view that, despite industry-developed codes of practice that state this, the reporting of news is not fair, accurate and balanced.

4.40           For instance, the Inquiry heard from Professor Robert Manne who, earlier in 2011, had written an extensive critique of The Australian newspaper in Quarterly Essay entitled ‘Bad News: Murdoch’s Australian and the Shaping of the Nation’ that examined seven case studies of the newspaper’s coverage of issues.

4.41           One of his case studies concerned coverage of climate change policy and his findings mirrored those of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism. Professor Manne’s research found that articles unfavourable to action on climate change outnumbered favourable articles by a ratio of four to one.

11.55     The News Media Council requires clearly defined functions. It is not recommended that one of them be the promotion of free speech.

11.56     The principal function of the News Media Council should be … investigating and resolving alleged contraventions of the standards whether on complaint or by own motion

11.58     … The News Media Council should have supervision of the standards of all news media on all platforms.

11.67… If … internet site has a minimum of 15 000 hits per annum it should be subject to the jurisdiction of the News Media Council

11.70     … There should be no requirement for the panel to provide reasons for a decision…

11.77     It is necessary, if the News Media Council is not to be a ‘toothless tiger’[2], to have a means of enforcing its decisions. There should be a legal requirement that if a regulated media outlet refuses to comply with a News Media Council determination the News Media Council or the complainant should have the right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order compelling compliance. Any failure to comply with the court order should be a contempt of court and punishable in the usual way.

11.78     In order to preserve the ability of the News Media Council to act swiftly, there should be no internal appeal from, or internal merits review of, a determination. Nor should there be external merits review via the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Now, you can bet your bottom dollar that appointees to this new board will be Labor Party sympathisers, so that they will treat opposition to the warmist agenda as a breach of their standards. There will no right of challenge (for example on the grounds that what is said is true), and a failure or fall into line will be enforceable as a contempt of court, i.e. by unlimited fine or imprisonment.

So, just in case this is my last chance, let me say several times now what it might be illegal for me to say soon:

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

The predictions that man-made CO2 emissions are hurtling us towards runaway global warming are demonstrably claptrap.

I do not share the view of the warmists that saying something often enough makes it true.  I just wanted to say it a few times before it becomes illegal.


[1]Richard Willingham ‘Push on for media inquiry’ The Age (Melbourne) 15 July 2011 <www.theage.com.au/national/push-on-for-media-inquiry-20110714-1hg7n.html#ixzz1j0FiVeUj>.

[2] The Press Council in Britain has been referred to as ‘a tame bulldog with rubber teeth’ (Henry Mayer, The Press In Australia (Lansdowne Press, 1964) 245).

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Climate, Politics

3 responses to “George Orwell, I presume?

  1. Lucy Fenwick Elliott

    Could you repeat your earlier statement? I didn’t quite get that.
    You need to make these things clearer.

  2. Pingback: Marmighty Power | phenell

  3. Pingback: The Silence of the Lamps | phenell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s