8th August 2012
Who is David Evans – this alleged anti-Semitic fraud and monster?
John Quiggin asked me to not correspond further. So I wished him best of luck and left off. Now he seems to have changed his mind. He has sent the following email to me in relation to my blog post on David Evans's article.
I find it odd that you send me the piece by Evans then say you don't care is he is a fraud or liar. In that respect, I'm compelled to say that Andrew Bolt is a bit more scrupulous. Here he is on the Galileo movement, whose anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are largely developed by Evans.
And here's the scoop on Evans
I don't expect you to apologise to me or even retract your endorsement of the Evans piece you sent to me, but I want you to be fully informed of what you are doing when you promote this poison.
First, do I care if someone is anti-Semitic? I'm quite happy to have even Hitler's views published. Not by me! But Mein Kampf should never be banned. Nor should anyone else's work. I'm AGAINST any ban on "hate speech". I've made that abundantly clear in the past on many occasions. I'm in favour of absolute freedom of expression – EXCEPT expression that directly threatens or expresses a plan of violence. But such plans of violence are not hate speech but acts of violence.
Second, I was NOT "promoting" David Evans. I was discussing science. I've never even heard of David Evans before in my life. And if the Sydney Morning Herald can publish his work, then shouldn't it first be accused by John of "promoting" anti-Semitism or whatever? Note that David Evans didn't write to me to publish his post on my blog! He wrote to a proper newspaper. I merely cited his article.
Third, in my blog post I was talking about DATA and EVIDENCE regarding the science of climate. It doesn't matter to human knowledge whether scientific information is published by an anti-Semite, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, or by an anti-Hindu. Or anti-anything. I'm sure if you dig hard enough, you'll barely ever find any unbiased scientist. Or unbiased human. The key is to judge the science on its merit. The BALL must be played, not the PLAYER. John did not rebut any of the EVIDENCE that I discussed. He is once attacking the messenger.
But I'm curious anyway, now. I don't have time to read the links sent by John (at least not today, when its is time to retire for the night). But if anyone knows who is this evil monster known as David Evans, please let me know. It may seem strange, but I've now got a feeling that anyone attacked by John (like Donna Laframboise) is likely to be an outstanding human being.
For instance, there is NO JOURNALIST in the world who has investigated IPCC more thoroughly than Donna. She is the world's best investigative journalist. Or close to the world's best. Yet, John called her a liar (before he then retracted but called her analysis amateurish).
Given John's track record, it is quite possible that David Evans will turn out to be a brilliant nice man. I have no interest in David Evans, but given John's charges, I might as well find out more. If he is anti-Semitic it won't change his science (or my opinion of his science), but at least I'll know that the science is being served to me by an evil man.
I typed David Evans on google and found that he has published on ABC. That's pretty evil of them. Taxpayer funded, too. ABC.
But it is time to retire for the night!