[... continued]

After all,

    “… people don’t burn carbon just to annoy Al Gore!

Cue here for a rounds of chuckle at the expense of "warmist" former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.



Lomborg argues that as Kyoto (which he opposed) and Copenhagen haven’t worked, so trying to gain agreement to reduce global emissions should be abandoned.

Instead, he favours making renewables cheaper so that people will want to use them. He ignores the significance of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and suppression of renewables. He agrees that most good economists would favour a carbon tax to do this but, as it’s not going to happen…

Coming across as a cheerful reassuring realist, Lomborg is actually supporting the promotion of fossil fuels. His role is to quell concern and urgency using false claims.

So, how did objective factual reporting and skilled analysis get to be translated into the false balance of always featuring at least one opposing opinion?

Naomi Oreskes, with co-author Eric Conway, has detailed the sowing of doubt in her book Merchants of Doubt. It chronicles the history of the promotion of false uncertainty as to the harmful reality of tobacco, asbestos, acid rain, the depletion of atmospheric ozone and, of course, climate change.



One of the strategies used was the establishment and entrenchment by the tobacco industry of the principle of ‘balance’ in all debate — thereby prolonging a ‘jury is still out’ pseudo debate even when the facts are abundantly clear.

Even in 2014, tobacco is still finding and funding scientists, like David O’Reill, who argues that smoking is good for your health because it makes your brain work better.

But the balance misconstruction, in an even more distorted form, is creeping further into the political jargon and is decrying a supposed imbalance in the present Australian school curriculum.

It is a perfectly amazing coincidence that the newly appointed curriculum reviewer, Dr Kevin Donnelly, has previously been an education consultant to tobacco giant Phillip Morris.

The education package he designed for them promoted material on smoking to children as though the jury was not fully in on the habit. He promoted it as a resilience building and independent thinking program, although it omitted information on the harm to health. The information, about harm, was added to the package after objections. Its aim was to provide tools for children as to how to choose or not choose to smoke — yet it failed to protect or warn vulnerable children ‒ a captive audience ‒ about the severe dangers or smoking.

Dr Donnelly argued recently that

    '… the cultural left has taken the long march through the education system and enforced its biased, ideological world view on schools.’

Dr Donnelly plans to undo this with his own tramp through the school curriculum, such as by making comments about some alleged attempt to airbrush our Judeo-Christian heritage from the history syllabus.



Educational experts have expressed concern at the prospect of this review creating confusion in the painstakingly achieved current consensus over the curriculum. Dr Donnelly’s despicable record in soft peddling tobacco in schools should, in itself, disqualify him from going anywhere near the school curriculum. I, for one, would not want him in any way involved in the instruction of my children or grandchildren.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

We are saturated in an overabundance of faux ‘balance’ when the entire Murdoch Press is included. From political to environmental, from Britain to the U.S. and all the way to Australia, the Murdoch media machine has relentlessly pushed an agenda that looks like, sounds like and reads like unmitigated one-eyed propaganda.

So what is the answer to this imbroglio?

As Media Watch Jonathan Holmes declared:

    “False evidence leads to confusion. To put it bluntly, there’s evidence, and there’s bull dust. It’s a journalist’s job to distinguish between them, not to sit on the fence and bleat ‘balance’. Especially when people’s health is at risk. That’s my view.”

Mine too.

Left v right paradigm gave birth!!!!!!!!

In fighting there are four centres: yours, the opponents, the centre between both of you, ... and lastly the centre of the environment in which takes place the contest!