Marginalising those who disagree
Bomber at Tumeke gives us an excellent example of the tendency by some to not address arguments you disagree with, but try to paint your opponents as having impure motives, or being brought off.
The Climate Science Coalition took issue with NIWA blaming the Northland floods on global warming (an unprovable assertion).
Now Bomber in a wonderful conspiracy theory discovers that two of the twenty or so members of the CSC have both written the odd article for Tech Central Science Foundation (which has over 100 writers), and that four years ago Exxon-Mobil gave US$151,430 to TCS.
Now he demands the NZ Herald publishes this damning revelation. The very clear implication is that the CSC is in the payroll of Exxon-Mobil and you can’t trust anything they say because they are being paid to say whatever their corporate masters demand they say.
So because 10% of the members of the CSC, may have written articles which they may or not have been paid for by TCS, and because TCS has had a donation by Exxon-Mobil that may be less than 1% of their budget over the last four years, this means the CSC is in the pay of Exxon-Mobil.
Or one could just conclude that people with honestly held views sceptical of the AGM theories, write for organisations that share those views.
This is not to say the the CSC is right or wrong with the scepticism. But trying to close down debate by alleging that scepticism is due to funding from big oil, is not the way to go.
By that rationale we should not listen to a single word Labour says on employment law, because they are part funded by the Unions.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 am
He is also want to not publishing ones comments when they contradict any rebuttal of his own…probably just to appear as though his arguments remain unchallenged…pretty sad really.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
“but try to paint your opponents as having impure motives, or being brought off.”
Would never happen round here that would it!
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Oh
I once attended a training course that had some CIA personal on it (true). It was electronic in nature.
Maybe I am a spy now.. ohh .. how exciting.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
They got funding from an oil company to push the “no such thing as global warming” side of the argument.
Enuff said.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Sonic – if people hide behind an alias, they invite curiousity when they are so one sided and partisan, as to who they really are.
The easy solution is to post under your own name.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I disagree with Augee simply because he makes dishonest arguments. For example, in the herald today claiming that heat doesn’t create more moisture in the atmosphere, pointing to the fact that the ‘the desert is hot but not moist’ to illustrate his point.
Of course every first year geography student knows that the cyclic air currents the desert creates forces the moisture upward and outward to moist areas such as the rainforest which immediately borders it. So the fact that the desert is dry proves nothing at all. It is actually the surrounding areas that are effected by the deserts heat and any extra moisture the atmosphere contains. The will not change at all.
Of course, he knows this – but his aim is not to enlighten people, it’s to convince them of his point of view, with an oversimplified example meant to make sense to the causal layman who doesn’t know the facts. Whether his arguments make scientific sense or not is apparently not important to him.
Frankly I don’t know why he does this. I doubt it’s due to bribes from oil companies. More likely it’s just egomania or perhaps retaliation some personal slight he feels he’s taken. Maybe his parents didn’t smack him enough when he was a child???
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
This is the same Bomber who on ALT TV on Sunday when in discussing the S59 repeal made reference to the use of a horse whip (inaccurate) as opposed to a riding crop (actual)?
On the plus side only me and maybe 2 other people saw it…
Kettle meet Pot
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Sorry, last sentence in second paragraph should read: ‘Extra moisture in the air will not change the amount of moisture in the desert itself’.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
This is the same Bomber who on ALT TV on Sunday when in discussing the S59 repeal made reference to the use of a horse whip (inaccurate) as opposed to a riding crop (actual)?
On the plus side only me and maybe 2 other people saw it…
Kettle meet Pot
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Regrettably, both sides in the current dispute (one from NIWA and the other from MetService) stretch their science a bit too far. Both are right and both are wrong.
I saw the same in the dispute over the _expansion_ of the Globe Progress mine near Reefton. Opponents portrayed it as encroaching on old growth forest. I have been there, and it’s second growth at best. Proponents portrayed it as essential to their economy, and suggested opponents were trying to stop the mine entirely. Both sides exaggerated their arguments.
It’s sad when people feel the need to overextend the evidence for their positions. If it’s a valid position, the evidence will speak for itself.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
c’mon david..!
of course it is in the public interest to know that climate-change denialist trolls are (secretly) funded by exxon mobil..
who are you trying to kid here..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)..
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Phil
Since 1999 scientists have recorded temperature increases in the Martian and Jupiter & her moons atmospheres plus a 20 fold increase in the luminescence of Venus which they attribute to increased radiation from the sun.It seems possible that global warming is a product of human and natural activity so let’s start discussing how we adapt and minimise the human portion.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
The Herald tried this approach recently with another member Chris de Freitas. they then had to print a large grovelling apology a couple of days later because of the erroneous imputations on his reputation….
Perhaps anything done by bradbury should be accompanied by a suitable warning – you know, something like “he’s big, he’s bad, he’s dumb and sad”
or
“Mr Bradbury’s opinions are not his own but are in fact a pale shadow of those held by various other people who view student forums in the Quad and associated demos as the height of intellectual rigour, even though most of those views have long ago been discredited and discarded by those who actually got over the thrill of hearing their own voices through cheap megaphones. Radio NZ apologises for using your money and radio batteries on giving this guy airtime – he is literally a waste of (air)space.”
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
are you talking about ‘solutions’..?
rumpole..?
and not just finger-pointing/’yes it is’-'no it isn’t’..?
yes please..!
it does get tiring having to counter/puncture the same bullshit over and over again..
let’s just agree it’s a mix of reasons..
but we know it is happening..
so..what do/can we do about it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
If it’s such a secret Phil, how did you know? It wasn’t through brilliant investigative jounralism by bradbury.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
‘Marginalising those who disagree’
This seems like rhetoric to me – i would say that any disagreement involves some degree of marginalisation of the opposing point of view.
So if someone disputes what i just said and i for whatever reason do not accept their argument then i am ‘marginalising those who disagree’. Am I not?
So – ‘marginalising those who disagree’ is a natural part of any argument. I guess it is the tactics used to marginalise that are the problem here – tactics such as:
smearing,
shit-flinging or
politely disagreeing and clearly stating why you disagree
Let me suggest a scale – at one end we have acts such as those of the christian-right who are prepared to make death threats against the children of those who disagree with them (katherine rich) – not a good look!
At the other end you have the aforementioned tactic of politely disagreeing and clearly stating why you disagree
Now my question is this – where does this (the above) disagreement lie on that scale?
Also i would like to suggest that a certain scale of condemnation should line up exactly with the previous scale – death-threats against peoples children should be severely condemned outright. at the opposite end polite well thought-out disagreement should not be condemned at all but appreciated for what it is.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Sonic – In reply to a post about attacking the messenger and not the argument, you attack the messenger (well, his blog in general) and not the argument. Awesome!
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“The easy solution is to post under your own name’
I’m sure all of your posters who are always threatening to beat me up would love that David. Should I include my address so CTFSWatch can post it online?
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
um insider..i read the above post..?
how about you..?
when did you get ‘the secret’..?
one-fifty one thousand in american..
is over a quarter of a million dollars in our money..eh..?
whoar..!..that’d buy a few ‘spun’ stories/articles..eh……?
over the last four years..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Oh Sonic you play the martyr so well. Yes I am sure you sit at home trembling.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Rumpole, you raised those claims on a thread yesterday, I have replied there.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Phil
you said they were “(secretly) funded”. If Bradbury can find it out it;s not a ‘secret’ so how can they be secretly funded?
Exxon openly publish who they donate to, including TCS. TCS is a known entity. Gray and Carter had their names on their articles. So where is the scandal?
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Just a quick question folks – why doesn’t the Climate Science Coalition just be honest with who funds them in this country? Why is it a secret? I hardly think asking who is paying the bills is a conspiracy theory David.
Oh and I’m sorry for the massive mistake between a horse whip and a riding crop, maybe I’d know better if I hit kids more often
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
If we all ignored Bummer, maybe he’d go away. He is a waste of oxygen and bandwidth. This is all just more grist to his wrist-driven mill…
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
David Farrar says – “Yes I am sure you sit at home trembling.”
How would you feel if people online were threatening to beat you up David Farrar? How would you feel if the CYFSWatch creators were threatening you and your family just because you hold certain opposing viewpoints – David Farrar? Need i remind you that it is the goal of these people that their opponents should ‘sit at home trembling’ – and i, for one, think that this kind of thing should be utterly condemned!
This sir, is a disgusting and dispicable slur – I demand that you make an apology!
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
If I remember rightly it was Sonic who threatened to “tap me” one day when I was least expecting it, when he was called on it and challenged to step in the ring he ran as hard and fast as he could all the while claiming “victory”.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Whaleoil – this isn’t about you.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Idiotboy – Unlike Sonic who hides his identity I do not. This means that I in fact have had death threats. I’ve had abuse in person and abusive correspondence. I’ve even had people phone up to remonstrate with me over my views.
And if you are so stupid that you do now know what my view of what CYFSWatch did, then there is little hope for you.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Bomber – one could just ask the CSC directly. But more to the point I don’t think they have or require any significant funding. As far as I can tell they’re a bunch of individuals who do their own research and put out press releases. They do not have an office, they do not have staff (as far as I know), they just have a viewpoint.
And my point is we should assume that is an honestly held viewpoint unless there is direct evidence to the contrary.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
lol! – who’s playing the martyr now then? So you are sitting at home trembling too are you David Farrar?
You – who have been a victim of such tactics – you should be taking every chance you can get to condemn them!
As for your views on CYFSwatch, i have no earthly idea of what they are! But since you are asking people to post their real names, and will not accept their right not to – i am leaning toward a particular conclusion.
If you do not apologise David Farrar – then you sir, are morally bankrupt!
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Whale oil, look out your pants are on fire!
David, to be honest it is more my employment I am worried about that big mean whaleoil and chums popping round to sort me out.
After all we know they are all just talk anyway.
xxx
S
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
NO David you don’t understand, people can’t act out of conviction or common interest, they have to have a secretly funded agenda, which until disproven is proved.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“we should assume that is an honestly held viewpoint” I’ve always accepted this, but I think they have a “the ends justifies the means” attitude. They are prepared to make claims they know are untrue.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Martyn – the CSC is hardly a secret society. They have a website that lists alltheir members and their qualifications. If you want to know who Vincent Gray and Bob Carter are, look them up. You faux’ we should be told who is funding them’ is just a flimsy cover for your laziness and bias and demonstrates a Swinneyian tendency to see conspiracies. Owen McShane posts here regularly and acts as a sort of secretary for the CSC so I;m sure he can provide you with the info you need.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
poor old Bomber the black helicopters from the big bad corporations are circling him and about to decend.Mayday Mayday Mayday
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Andrew
“They are prepared to make claims they know are untrue.”
I think the CSC would claim the reason they were set up was to counter such activities from the ‘other side’, which were being almost uncritically adopted as fact.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
“He is also want to not publishing ones comments when they contradict any rebuttal of his own”
Yes, I suspected that I wasn’t the only one. Then he has the gall to write sad little posts asking where all the people who oppose him have gone.
But let’s say for a minute that Bomber is right and that CSC is well in the pocket of big oil. So what? It doesn’t prove that their science is wrong. It certainly doesn’t mean you can bag them for pointing out that attributing a single weather event to global warming is rather stupid. You can find plenty of pro-AGW who’ll say exactly the same thing. Especially after Al Gore has been somewhere to give a warming talk and it snowed
At best it makes their motives suspect but then the same charge can be leveled at researchers who are getting grants to demonstrate global warming. And, to be fair, that doesn’t disprove their science either.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
True, there is plenty of BS from alarmists, NZ CSC set themselves up to counter this, like self appointed police – trouble is they are a clique and have convinced themselves that AGW is an evil conspiracy, and they are prepared to play outside the rules, like bent cops, to prove it.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
dpf said..
“..As far as I can tell they’re a bunch of individuals who do their own research and put out press releases. They do not have an office, they do not have staff (as far as I know)..”
so..low/no overheads..?
the bucks go straight into their pockets..eh..?
not silly..!..eh..?
whoar..!..over a quarter of a million bucks..
to fund denialist lies over global warming..!
(may they all rot..!..eh..?..)
(and as another who has been physically threatened by whaleoil..
can i just note how obvious it is he is a bullying gun-head/violence-freak….)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Phil, are you refering to the ~$150,000 US? That didn’t go to the NZ CSC.
See what I mean about alarmist BS?
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Alas, he doesn’t go far enough. I am behind this plot. See Exxon has received money from me. I confess I’ve purchased products from them. They get my money and do my bidding. Now you might think the amount I give is insufficient. Well, TCS pays very, very poorly (If they pay at all which is in dispute with some people claiming they can’t get their pay from them). The total payment for an article is not very high. If you take Exxon’s donation to TCS what percentage of the total budget is it? Does our conspiracist say? Let us assume 10% of the total TCS budget (which is substantial for any group). Let us assume that TCS pays 50% of income for writers and the rest for badnwidth, design, staff, etc (it’s probably worse than that). So now Exxon’s donation is about 5% of what writers get. So is this moron saying these people sold their soul for maybe $5 or $10. Of course that presumes they even know that Exxon donates to TCS (if it does?) Right! The academic world is just filled with people who write things they don’t believe for that extra $10 from Exxon. But then Greenpeace and lots of environmental groups get money from oil companies as well! So are they pawns of big Oil?
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
so..andrew w..who funds them..?
and how much do they get..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
They run a web site, so do you. How much does it cost?
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Interesting how the CSC website “recommends” Ken Ring’s website. The same Ken Ring who thinks the moon controls the weather. Now that’s science!
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
“The same Ken Ring who thinks the moon controls the weather.”
And the same Ken Ring who rubbishes MetService, but is happy enough to copy and paste their weather maps, time-shift them forward a year or so, and then sell the result in his weather almanac.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
We had a lot of fun discussions with Ken on the NZ CSC site before they cut the comments out, Ken is also an astrologer. The other day I received an invite from my bank to a seminar by Ken. I’m wondering my the bank will now give me a loan, because the chicken entrails say they should.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Hemi: Yes! I had a chat with a guy from MetService who told me this. Ken really gave the game away when he accidentally left the name of a cyclone (from a few decades previous) on one of his “predicted” weather maps. Why would CSC want to associate with him?
Andrew: He must have some money behind him to advertise through the bank! Clearly I’m in the wrong job – I’m gonna get some training in chicken entrail reading!
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
jeez Phil who funds your website and advertising? And why are you asking Andrew for the CSC info? Ask them yourself. Not that the numbers will mean anything to you because you can’t add and can’t convert currency
1 150kUS is not 250k NZ – not at current rates any way. At the long term USD-NZ rate of approx 65c that is about 205k
2 Bradbury actually said it was 150NZD and that would hardly fund a staffer for a year. It couldn’t even buy Labour a NZ election to give some perspective, so it would be nothing in the global or even US political space in terms of influence.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Any mention by Bomber of the money given to Greenpeace by big oil…Shell,BP…..? no….? golly…
April 4th, 2007 at 9:20 am
insider,
Haha there are plenty out there who will sell themselves for 150k NZ or US.
And of course it’s nothing compared to global totals… doh!
April 4th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The CRMS manages the Coalition’s bank account and it currently has the princely sum of $1700 odd from private donations to help us rent lecture halls for speakers etc.
Much of our funding comes from the NZ Govt in the form of Superannuation. Most of us are self employed even we are officially Old Age pensioners.
People who make accusations of corporate funding are normally corporate funded themselves or funded by governments. The CRMS has a policy of not accepting or applying for Government funds. Enough people are in their pay already.
IF Vincent is in the Pay of Exxon then who I am beholden to because I have written for the Herald.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Peter claims Augie made certain statements as follows:
“I disagree with Augee simply because he makes dishonest arguments. For example, in the herald today claiming that heat doesn’t create more moisture in the atmosphere, pointing to the fact that the ‘the desert is hot but not moist’ to illustrate his point.”
Just for the record here is what Salinger said about the connectioin between war air and rain and what Augie said in reply.
“So simplistic, it’s silly” is how Dr Auer describes the statement by NIWA climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger that “As climate warming occurs, the atmosphere can hold more moisture and therefore more rain falls and therefore what we have thought of under past climate data as one-in-100 or more reduces.”
…
“As an explanation of the cause and consequences of last week’s Northland rains, Dr Salinger’s statement above is as unscientific as it is incorrect. If warming of the air encourages more moisture in the atmosphere, how come there’s no rain over the deserts? And the mere presence of moisture in the atmosphere will not produce rain unless there is an associated atmospheric and meteorological process, which last week was the great volume of warm saturated tropical air that funnelled down on to New Zealand.”
Read what Peter says Augie says. Then read what Salinger said. And then read what Augie said in reply – both sentences.
And then ask “who is being dishonest?”
April 4th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
” The CRMS has a policy of not accepting or applying for Government funds”
I believe the Flat Earth Society has the same policy!
April 5th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Ohhhhhhhhh come on Farrar how come the world’s most famous Miss Odgernist is allowed to post ,nay,feted on your blog.You know very well that the rules allow anonymity otherwise Whale and gooner and Lemur (your heroes } would come out,they and I chose not to for the time being,in my case for business reasons.