Ken Perrott described so well the laudable principles of scientific scepticism. Who would have guessed he would poke his own neck into a noose he was preparing for us?
He says scientific debates depend upon good faith, but then claims good faith justifies calling us by the despicable term climate “deniers”.
Which is like claiming to rob banks in the cause of honesty. But it gets better. He says:
So what about “deniers.” Well, the difference here is that their “scepticism” is not aimed at improving our knowledge, or of furthering truth, but in discrediting that knowledge. By now we have all become used to the climate change denial activity, its sneering attitude towards science and the facts, and the support it gets from the fossil fuel industry and extreme right-wing and conservative politicians.
Man, this is toxic, poisonous stuff.
Not aimed at furthering truth, but discrediting that knowledge? That’s a nasty accusation, but it’s not true of the Coalition — we practice no “sneering attitude towards science,” we get no support from the fossil fuel industry and what does it matter which politicians we talk to? It doesn’t prove our arguments right or wrong.
As Perrott completely abandons the good faith he lauds so piously above the fold, we’re treated to a detailed rebuttal of our arguments, perspicacious and enlightening. Oh, no, sorry, I mean a torrent of fact-free slime.
This denier groups is rather weird. It calls itself the “New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust,” and is known as a branch of the NZ Climate Science Coalition – a local denier groups with links to the US Heartland Institute and other right wing-think tanks. It originally attempted to register as a charity and was actually listed for a short time in the NZ Charities register. Now it has been removed!
Perhaps their registration was rejected, possibly because of its political nature or its unwillingness to provide financial reports. Or perhaps they decided that there was little mileage (and little support) from going down the charity road and it has fallen back on deeper financial pockets.
It might need them.
His typing adds nothing to his credibility – “This denier groups” and “a local denier groups.” What’s a wing-think tank? I believe English is his mother tongue, but it’s not obvious.
The avalanche of baseless speculations in the penultimate paragraph are of course the clincher and there’s little to add to them, except perhaps to admit that I’ve entirely changed my mind, and to say that yes, of course NIWA did a great job on the national temperature record which they claim in open court is entirely unofficial and doesn’t belong to them.
This vapid piece of non-thinking from Open Parachute is unmitigated garbage, except perhaps for some of the description of scepticism.
Any comment, NIWA loyalists? Or has the cat got your tongue?
I should start on Renowden but it will keep.
Views: 76
Richard, thanks for this post. I read this wxxxxr’s post last night after a couple of red wines and I got most heated about the “torrent of fact-free slime”. I started to write a comment on his blog, but then stopped myself. One of my rules is to never send an angry message under the influence. It never reads well in the morning. Which may explain the lack of good English and lack of facts in Perrott’s piece! If that’s an open parachute, God help the sky divers.
By the way, there were only 2 comments on that thread – one by Perrott himself. Not much readership there, then?
Don’t write anything on openparachute. Perrot & his 2 disciples will argue & lie without ever admitting they’re wrong in any way, when it’s blatantly obvious they are. Perrot’s main objective is to try to encourage people to visit his site through controversy (his other main interest is discussing atheism on religious websites) so he can boost his pathetic readership, and then hook them into an endless dialogue of BS to prolong the visits.
After crapping all over people who do make the mistake of visiting his site, I can’t see how it’s a mystery to him as to why nobody visits. The worst thing you can do is encourage him. The only way he gets people to visit his site is by posting the blog rankings there.
I think the NZ Herald might’ve got the hint a bit regarding a falling readership as they’ve actually publish anti-AGW articles lately. No hope for Perrot though, as he plummets toward the Earth with a tangled chute, just a controversy generating attention junkie – the class clown desperate for attention. Watch out for him leaking your personal details as well.
I see the estimable Doug Proctor has weighed in with a well reasoned comment.
However, I concur with AGCs remarks above
Doug Proctor’s comment is a very well-reasoned, compelling and thought-provoking one. Well done that man!
To be fair to Ken, his referral to “science and the facts” is the post-normal make-it-up-as-you-go-along variety peculiar to de-industrialization advocacy (e.g. Mann’s “the cause”) , wealth re-distribution activism and their collective darling and funding spigot, the UN (albeit with funds purloined from wealth and industry)
We should make the distinction between what fringe players like Ken regard as science and facts (he’s quite correct in his own little bubble) and what actual scientific method and factuality involves.
I’m a bit puzzled, chaps. I see no comment here by Doug Proctor, only A[n]thropogenic Global Cooling. Is that the one to which you refer?
Doug’s comment is on Ken’s blog
Ah! His excellent reasoning, his grasp of a wide picture and his seemingly effortless ability to explain it — he’s an inspiration. He sets out nicely the reasons for our action.
Poor old Cedric Katesby doesn’t know what’s going on and can only hurl distasteful personal abuse.
That’s the way he always behaves Richard. Try clicking on his name, it’s really quite funny.
Thanks Richard for advertising my blog I am really desperate for coverage because no one visits anymore (as you have been informed) so even your link is appreciated. Sob, sob.
No, seriously, thanks for picking up my spelling mistakes – I seem to be to relying on you to do at least that even if the science baffles you. Of course those mistakes are just due to my excellent mood – having had some really good news this week – but perhaps my age and failing vision have something to do with it.
But you disappoint me. You are really upset my my “baseless speculation” about your Trust. Did i hit a sensitive nerve? Yet the facts about it no longer appearing in the Charities Register remain.
I would have thought you would have taken the opportunity to reassure your minions in this post and tell them the real situation with the Trust.
Greenpeace got removed as a charity. Does that now mean you cannot claim back your donations Ken?
Heh! Maybe Ken’s stopped donating to Greenpeace “profit” as reported by the NBR:-
Greenpeace NZ’s profit tumbles 69%
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/greenpeace-nzs-profit-tumbles-69-wb-123505
It’s still a not-for-profit even though they report a surplus (not sure how that works). Some interesting numbers from their Financial Report:-
Fundraising by numbers
300,000 Approx number of Kiwis our Face to Face
and Phone Outreach team talked to about our
campaigns in 2011.
14,591 New supporters who joined Greenpeace NZ
in 2011.
19,002 Supporters who stopped donating in 2011.
54,733 Number of regular giving (direct debit)
supporters in 2011.
2,998 Number of supporters who made a one-off
gift in 2011.
$103 Cost to recruit a new supporter.
$3.15 The return for every $1 spent on fundraising.
16 Wonderful supporters left a gift in their will to
Greenpeace and these gifts allowed us to take our
campaigns one step further.
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/Global/new-zealand/P3/publications/GreenpeaceNZ-2011-Annual-Report.pdf
I don’t think the 3.15 factor can be applied to the $103 Cost to recruit a new supporter to calculate return per new supporter but professional begging and direct debit obviously works for Greenpeace (a bit like Destiny Church except you can stop giving without duress).
Greenpeace must have got a good conversion rate off the Lucy Lawless gig.
Gary, – that’s an obvious diversion. Which implies you guys have something to hide.
Aren’t you interested in what has been going on behind the scenes?
Why has this trust been removed from the Charities register?
Did they not qualify as a charity because of their political activity as occurred with Greenpeace? (Gary – that is what you imply by your comparison.)
Did this [ad hominem deleted] organisation decide that charitable donations would not amount to much and it wasn’t worth the required transparency?
Did they get a better offer from their political backers?
If not – how they hell are they going to pay for the legal costs of the High Court action?
Good on you Ken I did imply you are part of Gang Green.
Hi Ken
I have voted down your review of Gareth’s book on Amazon and reported it as offensive for using the term “denier” and “anti-science”
I don’t intend to comment on Gareth’s book since I haven’t read it (yet)
if anyone else wants to comment on ken’s review it is here:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Aviator-Burning-World-ebook/product-reviews/B008Y0MFTM/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_five?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar&showViewpoints=0
Sorry, before Treadgold points it out – the “my my” in the 2nd to last para should read “by my”. My good mood is getting in the way again but at least Richard is teaching me to check.
Ken seems to have a mental image of what us “denial activists” (sic) look like
Don’t know about you but if I looked half as sexy as that guy I’d be a very happy chappy. I’d be waving my 5.5 inch floppies from the rooftops!
Hey, this is good stuff, I’ll check this Ken blogger out – thanks Mr. Andy for the lead!
PS: Plse don’t get arrested waving your 5.5-inch floppy around. My wife reckons the smaller, but harder, 3.5-inch floppies perform better.
Funny Brandoch, but you were linking us to Kens blog only a couple of days ago.
Is this a sign of your impending goldfish like state?