ABC Australia's Expert "Swindle" Debate on YouTube

Thu, 2007-07-12 23:50Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

ABC Australia's Expert "Swindle" Debate on YouTube

That didn't take long. Thanks to our good friend down-under at Larvatus Prodeo.

Enjoy! Now all we need up is the Tony Jones Interview.

UPDATE: Here's the Tony Jones Interview with Martin Durkin.


WHAT THE F***?!?! Lyndon Larouche? Eugenics? Environmentalists want to kill people to bring the population down? Man, all they’ve got left is wacky conspiracy theories; if you can judge a movement by the calibre of the people it attracts, then that panel discussion was nothing but good news for greenies.
Crickey in Australia explains here why the audience asked such bizarre questions:
…we can see that these kinds of public debates are not very representative of the general public. People who participate aren’t selected randomly. Thanks for sending the link that shows it.
The enviros-are-nazis angle cracked me up. Like caring for the environment really aligns you with eugenics and state control (you know, how greens are always protesting because they want more genetically modified foods and less wilderness).
Just wait, Eco hitler, Zog or John Dowell will come on and accuse anyone with environmental concern, with being a communist, fascist, socialist, or terrorist. Or even all at once, considering its quite impossible to be at least be a fascist and communist at the same time, I’ve always wished they would make up their minds which one it is.
Seriously. This was a pretty bizarre clip!

Racist, Hitler, Nazi science!? Oh my. ABC sure can pick 'em.

This seems to explain it (thanks for the link) as an attack of the local Larouchites! 

A full explanation of the bizarre audience on the ABC’s Swindle show can be found in this article on the LaRouche organisations US site: Cheers, Bruce ps ALYM is the Australian LaRouche Youth Movement
Interesting that population control was such a hot button. When I was in highschool we all supported something called ZPG = zero population growth. It didn’t mean killing people off to reduce the population, it meant exercising restraint in the number of children we had for the sake of the species. We have systematically wiped out diseases that used to kills millions and improved diet & living conditions etc without dealing with the implications of more and more people surviving into adulthood to “be fruitful & multiply”. I recall something that Farley Mowat once said (with apologies if I don’t get it precisely), that “as long as we continue to breed mindlessly like brewers’ yeast in a vat of molasses we are doomed to destroy the thing that sustains us.” China enforced the “one child” law with disastrous side effects. It has to be a long-term educational process so that people make voluntary intelligent choices, not strong-arming them into line.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that the government will move ahead to establish a company that will build and operate a fibre-to-the-home national broadband network. It will create a huge broadband infrastructure from shore to shore, from Melbourne to Bondi which will no doubt have some people running for payday cash advance loans for computers.  Many will now be able to stream and download at incredible speed, and watch ARL and Bledisloe Cup matches live on the computer.  (Broadband – something to rub in to the Kiwis!) You have to get payday cash advance loans to get broadband in places other than Australia.

If anyone could upload the panel discussion, that would be great for us northern hemisphere types.
If anyone could upload the panel discussion, that would be great for us northern hemisphere types.
Crikey! has vids of the panel discussion (part 1 and 2): Sorry guys - I don’t know how to to do the html formatting. If someone could fix that up (or explain it) it would be great. Bruce
I’m looking for the panel discussion. The official site has some clips from the panel, but not all of it.
Okay, I’ll take that as a statement and we’ll move on. There’s another person down the front here with his hand up. We’ll go down the front. We haven’t been down there yet, the gentleman with the hat, eh?
Alright Um .. I’m a … I study economics, physical economics and astrophysics and also classical music under Lyndon LaRouche and the question I would like to have with the so-called “scientists” on the panel is 400 years ago Johannes Kepler the man that discovered universal gravity actually refuted the method of the IPCC Report of statistical analysis as being like Plato’s cave of seeing the shadows on the wall and there you got you know Tony doing the happy dance in front of the, uh, you know, the fire being the reality but these guys are just looking at the statistics of what they’re seeing, empirically seeing, and that’s – that’s true for them. Now, Johannes Kepler actually proved that the previous models before that as actually being incorrect in the sense of method wise, now this has been a general trend for 30 years, since the ‘Boomer’ drugs, sex and rock and roll.
Okay, listen, I think … sorry …
so what’s your comment on that the two, the geologists and the IPCC.
I have, I have I have a feeling that that’s a slightly obscure point to be making here and that …
Well … well … method is very important
I understand …
It’s the crux of it.
Oh wow, man.

The guy who was so full of himself when he started spouting about

    C14 in coal

"in copious measurable amounts". What ever that means?! It can't be both!

Whilst C14 in coal is sometimes measurable, it's

    hardly in copious amounts.

As for his claim of

    "over 70 reports",

this would seem to be hyperbole as would his other remarks.
Unless one includes

    creationist websites,

rather than scientific ones


The creationist 'froth', is because they believe it means they can prove a young earth < 6000 years. Rather than the 4.7 billion years!

How did it get there? Well if it were there because the earth was very young, it would be present in the ratio determined by radioactive decay. It sounds like that from the limited amount of reliable information available, that there wasn't much!

It is known that the C14 must have been there for less than 50 ky.

So presence of C14 in the deposits means that either the coal deposits are young, or it's got there by one or more secondary processes. Since it's possible to determine the age of coal deposits stratigraphically, we can be fairly certain that the coal is tens of millions of years old at least. In some cases it will be possible to infer the age by other means e.g. K-Ar dating.

It is known that:
The levels of C14 correlate with the radioactivity of the surrounding rocks. There is also a possibility that some C14 may be produced by solar neutrinos.

It looks like in-situ production of new C14 is the best-supported hypothesis; research is ongoing, and new research on the deep subterranean bacteria.

One of the things overlooked by the triumphalist creationist [he must be a creationist idiot because he referred to claims of coal being millions or billions of years old] prattling on in the debate is the fact that annually we are putting ~ 7.2 GTC of carbon into the atmosphere and we're not taking it out! Admittedly natural processes are removing about half of this.

But the the importance of C14 in coal is largely irrelevant. Although it would be nice to know exactly how the tiny amounts of it really got there, so that the creationists and man made GW can be made to shut-up. As usual, this will be being brought-up for decades by Exxon fundies.

Personally, I think his supreme noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster put it there! ;)

Incredible. These skeptics have no arguments left that haven't been debunked, so now they try to smear people by calling them (implicitly) eugenicists. Good job, nice try. If you can't refute the messenger, throw shit at him. I couldn't believe that that guy claimed Kepler discovered "universal gravity". Um, yeah, you mean Isaac Newton? I think that more or less indicates the general intelligence of those skeptics. While the "discussion" was entertaining by seeing people make fools out of themselves, the only thing left were people making statements and not really asking questions. My favorite part "So more people is a good thing?" Yeah, cause the enviromental movement wants to exterminate billions of people to avoid overpopulation.

Do the ABC not have broadcast assistants checking what the audience want to say first?