I’m not racist but….

At some point in our lives, we’ve all come across someone who has uttered these words which is promptly followed by something undoubtedly racist. For me, it was a bloke I met in North Queensland who said to me, “Mike, I’m not racist but I really can’t stand Indians.” When I pointed out that what he said was indeed racist, he tried to justify it by suggesting that he was in a majority so that “makes it ok.”  The problem is, he wasn’t really in a majority. He merely socialised with a small group of people who happened to have the same prejudicial views as him. What it interesting about this is that he knows that racism is wrong, hence his need to preface his comments about Indians with, “I’m not racist but…” Well, how about climate denialism? “I’m not a climate denier, but I just don’t accept the evidence.” What about politics? I’m not a right-winger but…” Here is a classic case where this person inadvertently admits that the right is a suspect position by suggesting his political party is “centrist”, however, everything they say and do suggests they are as right-wing as they come. Who am I talking about? The Climate Sceptics Party (CSP) and Geoffrey Brown, their official blogger. In his latest post, he makes the following hilarious statement.

“The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics are not aligned with either the LEFT leaning Green Gillard Government or the RIGHT  leaning Coalition. We are a Centrist party.”

First I’ll deal with the first part. It is very true that the CSP are not “aligned” with Labor, the Greens or the Coalition and I’m pretty sure they’re all happy about that because I’m confident they wouldn’t want anything to do with the CSP.

Second, this notion that the CSP are a “centrist party”. This statement is so ridiculous it beggars belief. It shows either a complete misunderstanding of the electorate, a complete misunderstanding of  what it means to be “centrist” or perhaps, like the bloke in North Queensland, knowledge that what they are is in fact what the majority find abhorrent. I suspect it’s a bit of the first and last. Like any population, the Australian electorate is subject to the rules of statistics and has a normal distribution in terms of the political spectrum.

Schematic of the Australian political spectrum in terms of the voting public’s political views.

This schematic suggests that the majority of voters arrange their political views in a normal distribution. Geoffrey Brown actually acknowledges this with his ridiculous “centrist” statement. Why else would he want to be recognised as such? The vast majority of political parties wish to appear to be centrist and the way they try to appeal to the voting public is with so-called “catch-all” policies. If we were to overlay this normal distribution with where the Labor Party sits in terms of its policies, it would look something like this.

Schematic of where Australian Labor Party policy sits in relation to the electorate’s political views.

 As you can see, Labor is primarily leftist, however, a number of their policies are designed to appeal to the majority of voters and some of the right. An example of a right leaning policy from Labor would be in the treatment of boat people. A chart for the coalition looks like this.

Schematic of where coalition policies sit in relation to the electorate’s political views.

As with the ALP, the coalition sits mostly to one side but overlaps a little to the other side. An example is the recent alignment of the coalition with some unions.

In both cases, with Labor on the left and the Coalition on the right, the tactic of moving towards the centre and over to the other side is designed to catch more votes from the middle where the vast majority of voters are.  Anecdotally, I know many people who complain at election time that both sides of Australian politics are the same. Some, even go as far as collectively calling them the Laborel (Labor + Liberal) party. The success of this tactic is evidenced by the fact that with the exception of a few independents and one Green, the federal parliament has fairly similar numbers of Members from each side. The same applies to the upper house where there is rarely much of a difference between the two major parties but for a substantial number of greens in a couple of States.

So, back to Geoffrey’s “centrist” fallacy. In the last federal election in 2010, the CSP ran senate candidates in each state but not in the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. If they were truly running on a “centrist” platform I would have expected them to receive many more votes than they did. In Queensland, they received only 0.19% of the overall vote and polled worse than other single issue parties like the Shooters and Fishers Party (1.74%) and the Australian Sex Party. The results were similar in New South Wales (0.21%), Victoria ( 0.15%), South Australia (0.46%), Western Australia (0.16%) and Tasmania (0.23%).  For a party claiming to be in the political centre that is a very very poor result. For that result to happen to a “centrist” party, the political landscape in Australia would have to look like this…

Schematic of Geoffrey’s distorted reality in terms of the political spectrum in Australia in relation to his party’s poor showing in the 2010 election.

What is more likely is the following graphic highlighting where his party fits and where the Greens are. The reason for mentioning the Greens will become apparent shortly.

Schematic of the reality in terms of the CSP and Greens and where they fit in the political spectrum of Australia.

So, how do we know the CSP is a right wing party and not in the centre? The answer can be found in the many pages of the official blog for the party. Given that the ALP do have some “centrist” policies amongst their mostly centre left, why hasn’t Geoffrey Brown, the official blogger for the CSP ever written a single post where he agrees with a policy or at least defended  a policy or Labor member? I performed a search on the site for the term “ALP” and not one of the posts that came up had anything favourable to say about the ALP. A similar search for “coalition” turned up plenty of  posts. I didn’t have to go far to find a favourable one. Here’s one. Here’s another praising Nationals, Barnaby Joyce and Ron Boswell. There are plenty. Even the post with Geoffrey’s ridiculous “leftist” comment that this post is about appears to defend  the leader of the coalition, Tony Abbott.

So what about the Greens? Well there is no doubt that the Greens sit on the political left. The venom and spite that comes from Geoffrey about the Greens is evident in every second post on the official blog for the CSP. I am given the impression that the CSP is diametrically opposed to anything the Greens say or do. In a 2010 post by one of the CSP members on behalf of the CSP by Senate hopeful, Terence Cardwell, the greens are referred to as a “poison chalice” and guilty of pushing a “communist agenda”.  From the same post comes this rant.

“Under that very thin cover of green is a very bright red of the communist, lead by the fanatical Bob Brown, who is a liar and one of the worst perpetrators of this world scam and he wants total control. If the extremists called ‘greens’ should bring their policies to fruition it will destroy our economy and our country. To the point it could bring about an extremely violent reaction from the Australian people when they finally realise that the Greens are deliberately trying to tear our country apart. By that time it could be too late. The only consolation would be that every Green would pay severely for their treachery.”

This has some of the hallmarks of a stereotypical right-wing rant. It’s got “reds under the bed”, appeals to nationalistic pride and suggestions of nationalism inspired violence against perceived “treachery”. There are plenty of posts complaining about Green policies. For example here, here, here and here. In fact, nearly every second post is an anti-Green post.

In contrast, the official blog for the CSP does not have a single post criticising any right-wing parties or organisations. In fact, I think this post says it all. Before I pin the screenshot.Let’s just go back to that key statement by Geoffrey Brown, the official blogger for the CSP again.

“The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics are not aligned with either the LEFT leaning Green Gillard Government or the RIGHT  leaning Coalition. We are a Centrist party.”

So Geoffrey, as a centrist party, who are you aligned with? From your post of 29 september 2011….

The allegedly “centrist” CSP aligning with the far right. That would be odd…if the CSP weren’t loony right all the way.

Geoffrey Brown, if you think you are “centrist” you’re even more stupid than I thought. If you think the majority of Australians are also on your wavelength you’ve completely lost your marbles. My question, why are you ashamed to admit that you are part of the loony right? Could it be because deep down you know how distasteful your ridiculous right-wing party really is?

So to return to the original theme, what Geoffrey is saying here is “I’m not a right-winger, but I denigrate the left, ignore the middle, praise the right, associate with the right and promote the right.”

And I didn’t even get to your blogroll, a veritbale who’s who of right-wing anti-science and conspiracy ideation. Maybe in a future post.

 

 

 

 

 

About these ads

29 Comments

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

29 responses to “I’m not racist but….

  1. john byatt

    AT http://justgroundsonline.com/forum?sort=mostRecentlyUpdatedDiscussions

    The climate sceptics do post comments against Abbot and the LNP, Especially suspicious of Turnbull and Hunt.

    “for not being far enough to the right” their idea of the perfect LNP member is Cory Bernadi, Cory is a Homophobic, racist, anti science loony.

  2. john byatt

    John Mikko’s ultra right wing column in the Gladstone Observer just got to loony even for the deep north and he was dumped .

    Often see his comments on ABC opinion pieces posting as JohnM.

    In deep denial this guy.

    http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/right-or-wong-on-climate-and?commentId=3535428%3AComment%3A24893

    .

  3. john byatt

    Just how far to the right?

    Free speech bites back – Just Grounds Community
    justgroundsonline.com/profiles/blogs/free-speech-bites-back
    Block all justgroundsonline.com results
    2 Feb 2012 – About Just Grounds … were similar to the reaction to Pauline Hanson’s reasonable words about … Just Grounds Community is a social network …
    Pauline Hanson for Postage Stamps – Just Grounds Community
    justgroundsonline.com/profiles/blogs/pauline-hanson-for-postage18 Jan 2011 – If they are going to put a woman’s face on Australian postage stamps, as someone who has made a significant contribution to modern Australia, …
    NSW Legislative Council Election – Just Grounds Community
    justgroundsonline.com/xn/detail/3535428:Comment:20535514 Apr 2011 – Those of us who support Pauline Hanson were probably – like me – extremely saddened that, despite all her best efforts, she lost the last …

  4. john byatt

    Gee, it’s been a big week for the Tea Party. And not just in America, where the wingnuts who infiltrated the party of Lincoln now look set to lose what should be an unlosable election.

    It’s been a big week, too, for Cory Bernardi, the Antipodean standard-bearer for the values and tactics of the American far right.

    He was forced to resign his post as parliamentary secretary to the Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, following his comments linking gay marriage to bestiality.

    Bernardi was a victim not only of his own words, but of the circumstances of the time: an Opposition appearing increasingly ill-disciplined and a leader whose belligerence, negativity and social

    conservatism are costing him support in the electorate.

    Bernardi’s comments only underlined both problems. There was no question he had to go.

    The more interesting question is why Abbott gave him the job in the first place.

    at global mail

    In today’s liberal party Pyne counts as a moderate!

  5. Nick

    Geoff Brown is in the dead centre of the hard right!

  6. In September 2008, a bunch of 30 bloggers, and people arguing the case (on the internet) that CO2 does not control the climate formed a group which decided to be a political party called the Climate Sceptics. We saw that both a scientific group and a political group was needed to argue our position and, if nothing else, to drag the coalition towards a more sceptical view of the alarmist / extreme green view which enjoyed almost no criticism in the mainstream media at the time.

    • Except that you lot are wrong about climate. Your party relies on charlatans like “Lord” Monckton for inspiration. You are all anti-science scientific illiterates. “scientific group”? That is hilarious.

    • john byatt

      You came, you saw, you crashed and burned.

      the Informal votes beat the TCS vote

      debating on geoffs blog is slower than snail mail, you have to wait til he finds some smart arse or irrelevant reply before he posts your comment
      he is the blogmaster, moderator and main troll, waste of time, has banned Mike

      post an agreement as anonymous and he laps it up

      post against him as anonymous and he is on about people hiding their identity, a loser and complete moron to boot. The best he could do in a reply in the Port Independent was “john byatt cannot spell sceptic”

      type skeptic into his search box and get hundreds of hits
      the man is a hypocrite,

      • john byatt

        Sugel is an astrology promoter, enough said

        • Really? I’m just pleased he/she(?) came to post a comment. Geoffrey just lies about posting comments here and then complains that I have him blocked, which of course I don’t. I have facts and evidence on my side about the climate and so have no need to screen comments. Sugel will find all comments will now be posted automatically unless of course there are 3 or more links.

          ________________________________

    • Sugel, you may want to consider using a different email address as there is a word in yours that my spam filter will continually pick up. I want you to be able to comment here without any dramas. Your first comment, rather than landing in the moderation queue was sent to spam. I don’t check my spam folder very often and there is the off chance that I may not spot any of your comments that end up there.

  7. john byatt

    How is this for anthony cox mathturbating

    The bulk atmospheric CO2 is increasing by about 1.5ppm PA or about 4Gt; then there is the annual flux which is the movements into and out of the atmosphere which are described here.

    Currently the atmospheric bulk is about 3000Gt; the annual flux is 218.2Gt [from Figure 7.3, AR4].

    The amount of human sourced CO2, ACO2, in that annual flux is 8Gt, or about 3.67% of the FLUX.

    How much of that flux actually stays in the air and adds to the atmospheric bulk? The answer is given by the US Department of Energy [DOE]; see Table 3 on page 22 of the PDF.

    From this we can see that 98.5% of ALL annual emissions of CO2/ACO2 are reabsorbed and about 1.5% of the flux or about 4Gt is added to the atmospheric bulk.

    In 2009 Australia was 16th of the world’s nations CO2 emitters, emitting 374 million tonnes or about 1.28% of ACO2.

    So, there are all the facts; who is closer to the truth; Jones or Karoly?

    1.5% of all CO2, both natural and ACO2, is retained annually to add to the atmospheric bulk.

    Of that 1.5% addition, annually, the ACO2 component is 3.67%; so ALL of nations’ contributions is 3.67/100 x 1.5/100 = 0.000552.

    Australia’s annual emissions are 1.28% of the global ACO2; so 0.000552 x 1.28/100 = far less than what Karoly said and even less than what Jones said.

    only letting my comments through that he can deal with

    does not seem to want to discuss his applying 3.7% to both human amount of total emissions and also applying it to what remains in atmosphere.

    This might give him a hurry up

    • john byatt

      yep went in but bits removed
      I referred cohenite to their own blog posts regarding Knorr and their big gotcha at the time.

      do not think bill is being dishonest, copying comments by hand and missing stuff

      • john byatt

        They have removed one of my comments on the pretext that it was insulting to cohenite .

        reference his insults to commenors at catallaxy files

        got rid of a bit of evidence

        see how he goes with this

        . Introduction Knorr
        [2] Of the current 10 billion tons of carbon (GtC) emitted
        annually as CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities
        [Boden et al., 2009; Houghton, 2008], only around 40%
        [Jones and Cox, 2005] remain in the atmosphere, while the
        rest is absorbed by the oceans and the land biota to about
        equal proportions [Bopp et al., 2002]. This airborne fraction
        of anthropogenic CO2 (AF) is known to have stayed
        remarkably constant over the past five decades [Jones and
        Cox, 2005], but if it were to increase in a way predicted by
        models, this could add another 500 ppm of CO2 to the
        atmosphere by 2100 [Friedlingstein et al., 2006], significantly more than the current total. While recent studies have
        highlighted a decreasing ability of the Earth system to
        absorb the excess CO2

  8. john byatt

    I am wondering how Bill Pounder is going over there at TCS as moderator,

    Having to allow Cox’s insults but being ordered to remove a full post from me because My Quote, I have found Cox’s ball’s up
    and

    I have read Cox”s nonsense on catallaxy files and his foul mouth comments

    good fun though

  9. john byatt

    MY final comment on the matter at TCS

    john byatt said…
    Well done Bill, only a few days as Moderator and you have gone from sceptic to misinformer

    As my comment and post of the introduction of Knorr2009 proved, Cox is a moron and does not have a clue,

    as I said before, on this blog facts never make it, or will you put my comment up now and claim site problems again to try to score browny points

    Newman has left the ABC, so doubt that Cox will get many of his crap opinion pieces into unleashed in the future

    November 6, 2012 6:06 PM

    Please prove you’re not a robot

    • You have more perseverence than I John. Maybe with this new moderator I might give it another go at posting a comment there although I get the feeling I am a keyword to be sent to the spam bin. Can’t have anyone clicking my name and bringing them back here where they can read about the shonky operations over there.

      • john byatt

        I got the impression from it taking about twelve hours for even the comments that made it to go up, bill now has to report to Cox before posting

        the one” Facts never make it” got through because bill was a bit naive,
        he probably lost others being new at this misinformation thing.

  10. john byatt

    TRY this Mike last post at TCS

    “Do you have a link to the emails”

    If you are not blocked he probably would not ask Cox about it

    give it a go,

    • I’m blocked. As soon as I hit “publish” it disappears. Oh well. That site and the party it represents are irrelevant anyway. When they can’t poll as high as the informal vote…..

      • john byatt

        The Port macquarie Independent seems to be in geoffs territory, the post on me went in the day after the letter published, I will stick it up them direct to that newspaper, It is in receivership at the moment, so will depend on new owners, announced this week, what they allow as far as debate goes

  11. john byatt

    IT was actually dumb old geoff at TCS who alerted me that my letters were going beyond the local weekly observer and into three other regional papers. thanks geoff

    http://www.portmacquarieindependent.com.au/wordpress/

    some of the links also had the letters