This just in.
The pond is pleased to announce an Andrew Bolt exclusive, as the Bolter dishes out the dirt to proponents of an even more stringent 18C
Golly, that means Cardinal Pell might not be allowed back into the country. As for those mad angry Sydney Anglicans and the Hillsong crowd ...
(That in a story here at Fairfax, with bonus forced video).
The Bolter's outraged response follows forthwith:
In other news today, the reptiles at the lizard Oz maintained the war on science, and Media Watch, and were so desperate that the world be allowed to see them in action, that they put the story outside the paywall, under the header Legal move threatened over Media Watch report, prepared by a young puppy, Simon King, who claims to be a senior reporter.
You know young Simon's really working the beat with his opening remark Acoustic expert Steven Cooper is considering launching legal action ...
Indeed, and the pond is considering whether to have a cup of tea, or perhaps a coffee, or perhaps a biscuit, or perhaps going for a walk, but things get even more curious when the talk turns to a pending legal action, as pending simply doesn't have the same meaning as considering.
Thereafter, the very long and wonderfully defensive piece is just another stroll down the usual anti-science corridors wherein many reptiles can be found clustered, diligently beavering away, this time with young Simon dragged in to defend the indefensible Graham Lloyd.
Naturally the man at the centre of the storm believes Lloyd is the best journalist writing about wind turbines in Australia.
Other journalists, it seems, have cultivated a sense of shame.
And this yet again:
Media Watch’s blatant misrepresentation of Mr Cooper is one of the key reasons for his letter demanding a retraction and pending legal action.
So is it pending, young Simon, with the lawyers right now heading across town to file, or is he simply considering?
And how about this?
Media Watch’s first “expert” was the head of medicine at Adelaide University, Professor Gary Wittert, who said: “The way The Australian reported this study was really the antithesis of good science reporting. I think a newspaper like The Australian should know better.”
Yes, what would the head of medicine at a leading Australian university know about science? How dare he call himself an "expert".
In fact, the pond is so outraged, it wonders why the reptiles didn't emphasise it a little more - bloody "" expert"", lah di dah, fancy pants doctor. What do you know about anything up against the astonishing power of reptile insight?
Why the outrageous so called ""expert"" has dared to contradict the reptile's preferred expert in actual court cases.
Naturally young Simon - who has astonishing qualifications in acoustic and medical training - is ready to point out the many errors of those who lack these basic, but essential skills.
And then there's that bloody ""expert"" Simon Chapman, who keeps on yabbering on about public health as if he's had something to do with public health ...
On and on young Simon rambles, smoting enemies, citing enthusiastic supporters, and at the end of it all, the pond came away thinking, now there's a young whip snorter who's doing his level best. Let's hope he gets a leg up into the reptile pantheon, or at least a statue in the hall of scientific fame ...
By coincidence, a reader drew attention to the March edition of the National Geographic:
You can read Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science here (with pop up encouraging registration).
It starts off with the fluoridation mob and General Ripper - how the pond loves that scene - and then goes on to explore all kinds of saucy doubts and fears.
The pond particularly liked these two pars:
Lancet published a study in 1998 linking a common vaccine to autism. The journal later retracted the study, which was thoroughly discredited. But the notion of a vaccine-autism connection has been endorsed by celebrities and reinforced through the usual Internet filters. (Anti-vaccine activist and actress Jenny McCarthy famously said on the Oprah Winfrey Show, “The University of Google is where I got my degree from.”)
In the climate debate the consequences of doubt are likely global and enduring. In the U.S., climate change skeptics have achieved their fundamental goal of halting legislative action to combat global warming. They haven’t had to win the debate on the merits; they’ve merely had to fog the room enough to keep laws governing greenhouse gas emissions from being enacted.
The reptiles of Oz, Spreading the fog down under ...
And sorry, it seems that earlier there was a glitch in the pond's report on the Bolter's firm stand against Tony Abbott.
So the pond is proud to present the Bolter standing firm, standing tall:
Oh okay, it's a little old, but let's see how he wriggles on this hook ... so far, not a bite ... but what's the bet a clamp down on some people daring to exercise free speech - the vile Islamic hordes - will seem like a jolly good idea. Every day, a new siren song to do the dance with Godwin's Law ...