Comments on: Denialism’s allies: nasty work in Australia http://hot-topic.co.nz/denialism%e2%80%99s-allies-nasty-work-in-australia/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=denialism%25e2%2580%2599s-allies-nasty-work-in-australia Global warming and the future of New Zealand Tue, 22 May 2012 17:06:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: RW http://hot-topic.co.nz/denialism%e2%80%99s-allies-nasty-work-in-australia/#comment-10789 RW Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:23:15 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=4207#comment-10789 I think Hamilton is absolutely correct about rightwing populism. There are plenty of odious posters on Farrar's site, and on Espiner's Stuff site, as a couple of "local" examples. The combination of ignorance and venom that many of them display is quite disturbing. I think Hamilton is absolutely correct about rightwing populism. There are plenty of odious posters on Farrar’s site, and on Espiner’s Stuff site, as a couple of “local” examples. The combination of ignorance and venom that many of them display is quite disturbing.

]]> By: tomfarmer http://hot-topic.co.nz/denialism%e2%80%99s-allies-nasty-work-in-australia/#comment-10774 tomfarmer Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:14:35 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=4207#comment-10774 Clive's Hive, no less. Congratulations to Clive Hamilton for the courage of doing this, its exposition and resulting responses. Which as at this afternoon(NZ time) revealed its commentariat's sequence thusly:— First article — 760 responses Second article — 576 responses Third article — 167 responses. I'll likely pop back there to see if second and third responses shift significantly. Or perhaps even not do so and confirm a feeling I have. To wit, only the more genuine readers in need of explanation and/or further exposition will mature the debate. If that happens then I sense a valuable lesson to and for those in need of responsible actions. Clive’s Hive, no less.

Congratulations to Clive Hamilton for the courage of doing this, its exposition and resulting responses.

Which as at this afternoon(NZ time) revealed its commentariat’s sequence thusly:—
First article — 760 responses
Second article — 576 responses
Third article — 167 responses.

I’ll likely pop back there to see if second and third responses shift significantly. Or perhaps even not do so and confirm a feeling I have. To wit, only the more genuine readers in need of explanation and/or further exposition will mature the debate.

If that happens then I sense a valuable lesson to and for those in need of responsible actions.

]]>