Saturday, June 13, 2009

Miranda Devine, Steve Fielding, climate change and heroic Davids up against quasi religious Goliaths

(Above: St Sebastian suffering like Senator Steve Fielding at the hands of wicked Goliaths).

A few unworldly folk have challenged this site's thesis that loons love to congregate together because the mutually supportive squawking is therapeutic in a hostile world.

Where's the scientific evidence for this theory, they say? Aren't you just on some vengeful quasti religious loon bashing exercise?

Well, okay then how do you explain Miranda the Devine, arch resident loon at The Sydney Morning Herald, taking such a shine to Senator Steve Fielding, arch loon of the Family First Party, in Fielding changes Canberra's climate?

Seeing as how you're part of the conspiracy of envy, how could you possibly understand the brave stand taken by Fielding on the matter of climate change? Compared to the heroic and elevated understanding of Miranda the Devine?

Despite the fact that Fielding embodies the classic story of David versus Goliath, in the tradition of Mr Smith Goes To Washington, the media has done little but give him a hard time. Climate change has become a special topic, somehow elevated above the critical questioning of everyday journalism, as media organisations form alliances with green groups and move dangerously close to activism.

And who might these media organisations be, since they can't be named but only hinted at, with a gnashing of teeth and a wailing in the darkness? Well surely not the Murdoch press, owner of some 70% of our newspaper resources, which has run a healthy campaign of fear and loathing for climate change nutters. Yes, it has to be - it can only be - the ABC, with its closet greenie socialism run rampant. Why every day on the Country Hour I hear another outburst of agrarian socialism.

How's that for knockdown proof of the devious, sinister corridors of power in the ABC with its vicious agenda to persecute David, or Mr Smith or the honorable Fielding.

Now you might have thought that since he's a Pentecostalist (special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit) that he's another of the nutters who believe in biblical inerrancy and might even at some point have enjoyed the rapture of speaking in tongues. (xenoglossia, you deluded heathens, except of course it isn't). He might even be just hanging around on the planet waiting for the rapture to strike at a convenient moment.

As usual, you would have got the wrong end of the stick, and come the raw prawn at a biblical hero armed with only a trusty slingshot and the stones of truth and justice:

Fielding has been smeared as a religious nutter, even though the real religious nutters are the green zealots who are hell-bent on destroying farming and mining for the sake of, at best, a minuscule environmental benefit.

Yes my friends, as surely as the bible offers the truth on everything, this truth is obvious. Heathens and scientists and atheists are the real religious nutters, hell bent on turning earth into hell by suggesting humanity should care about the earth and take care of the planet. What a bunch of religious zealots.

Why am I reminded of that image of St. Sebastian - admittedly a bit gay in some renditions - persecuted by arrows piercing the flesh? Has not Fielding and the Devine suffered a thousand arrows of bigoted contempt:

The puerile and often bigoted online publication New Matilda described Fielding thus: "As one of 15 children, he comes from a long line of people with no sense of human decency, and so his affiliation with the Pentecostal movement was a natural progression."

Growing up as one of 16 (not 15) children, Fielding is immune to such bullying, and is also unlikely to buckle to any emotional pressure in his meeting at 4pm on Monday with Wong, who will be pushing for his support for her scheme.

Yes indeedy a hero for our times, someone who can in best Piers Akerman style remind Wong that even if there were two of her that wouldn't make her right (because two Wongs never make it right).

By golly, you bastards with your contempt for Fielding have got Miranda the Devine mad as hell, and she's not going to take it any more:

Of course, he has been pilloried for being diligent enough to do the job he was elected to do.

He has been derided by people without any training in mathematics or scientific disciplines, who regard science, probably, as they do their computers - as a little black box to be understood only by an elite council of infallible gurus who are incapable of impure motives. Who is the gullible one?

The online newsletter Crikey described Fielding's trip to the US as "a futile mission based on a misguided assumption", a sick "stunt" akin to the Chaser terminal child illness skit. "The world is way beyond debating the science of climate change", it said. Oh, yeah?

Yeah, bring it on, you dumb computer worshippers who are incapable of  understanding how the intertubes are changing the plastic shapes of your feeble brains forever, ensnared and trapped as you are within the diabolical new world of screen culture (yes you there in the corner playing the video game, we've got your plastic fantastic warped brain number).

Fielding, who has an MBA from Monash University as well as an engineering degree from RMIT, is confident enough in his analytical ability not to be intimidated by overbearing experts into outsourcing policy to them.

That's right, he's an engineer and he's open minded and so he'll listen to any passing loon's concern about climate change.

Now let's deal with the conclusive evidence he's heard:

At the Heartland Institute conference in Washington, Fielding heard from the likes of atmospheric physicists Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT and emeritus professor Fred Singer of the University of Virginia, both warning against climate "alarmism".

He attended the launch of Singer's book Climate Change Reconsidered, the report of the so-called Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change, an 880-page refutation of the United Nation's Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change reports, with input from 30 "expert scientists from 16 countries".

That's right, it's 880 pages long, which is even longer than Ian Plimer's book, though I'm not sure if it has as many as footnotes, but anyway, it has input from 30 expert scientists from 16 countries. Now let that be an end to the discussion.

What's that? You want to hear the actual details and whether it's just more of the same paranoid meretricious tripe regularly emanating from the Heartland Institute? Sorry, move along now. Hey you there, don't stand here gawking, we're only here to bear witness to the relentless persecution of a heroic David by a bunch of klutz Goliaths, not actually deal with any of the issues.

But was this bit of grand-standing just another example of Fielding, in his ever so humble way, loving the fact that he's got the government over a barrel with his senate vote?

"I thought it was important I head over to Washington to hear first-hand how the Obama Administration plans to tackle global warming," he said in an email interview yesterday, "while at the same time also giving me a chance to hear from some of the world's leading scientists about whether global warming is man-made or not.

Strange then that he's somehow avoided going to conferences involving scientists who believe climate change is a reality, but I guess there's only one way to prove how open minded you are, and that's by avoiding quasi religious greenie zealot alarmists in favor of right minded sceptics and deniers. How else to get as many first-hand facts and earn the righteous braying support of Miranda the Devine.

Oh and by the way, if you were wondering what Crikey was actually saying, it was this:

Actually, Senator, your premise is wrong. The climate change issue is no longer about science. It is about insurance.

Enough reputable scientists — let’s conservatively say a number better than 20% of all reputable scientists in the world — have voted in favour of the existence of human-induced climate change. Even if the other 80% believed the climate was not changing, or that the change was not the result of human activity (and in reality their number is closer to 8%, not 80), there is more than enough scientific consensus to make this debate about one factor and one factor only: mitigation against risk.

The world is way beyond debating the science of climate change as a prerequisite for political action. Enough scientific expertise has validated the case to make it — like the possibility of cyclones, earthquakes and other events of nature — strictly about the size of the insurance premium.

Senator Fielding Goes To Washington was a futile mission based on a misguided assumption. He should have gone to Hartford, Connecticut instead. It’s the home of the global insurance industry.

You know the clowns in the Victorian Labor party who got Fielding elected - through their genuine deviousness and stupidity - have a lot to answer for, on a daily basis. As a result of their clever dick smart arse ways, we now have to listen to a git who polled less than 2% of the popular vote, and watch as he tries to outdo Don Quixote in his  posturing and tilting at windmills. Bring on a double dissolution I say and the sooner the better.

BTW, if you want an insight into Fielding's church, go here, but beware it's a mega church of biblical opportunities, while as always Wikipedia has some more details and a few handy links.

(Below: St. Sebastian again, this time by one of my favorite artists, El Greco, though is placement of one arrow almost induces sympathy for Senator Fielding in his torment.)

1 comment:

thewetmale said...

"the real religious nutters are the green zealots who are hell-bent on destroying farming and mining for the sake of, at best, a minuscule environmental benefit."

She should have said 'destroying farming and mining and letting wild fires run amok to kill little children and babies for the sake of not inconveniencing a few possums.'

"a little black box to be understood only by an elite council of infallible gurus who are incapable of impure motives."

Now where on earth does she get that one from. Even misrepresenting some left-wingers opinion from way back, who could have said anything remotely close to that. The only thing i can think of is it's a reference to the internet censorship debate, but i though the anti-censorship ones were those against elites controlling our computers.