In the Herald this morning Rachel Stewart, a rottweiler journalist and climate alarmist, complains about being on the receiving end of all kinds of flak drawn by her opposition to dairy farming pollution.
Now I shall tear her reasoning to shreds in an amazingly entertaining contribution to your summer holiday reading.
When I read Rachel’s article I had to chuckle but I am also forced to confess an unlikely kinship with her. For she reaps from dairying what she sows in climate change, and the feedback she gets from the dairy industry mirrors the experience of sceptics of dangerous man-made climate change such as myself.
We who have battled the climate charade for ten years and more stir the same hatred from those who make a living from climate change, the media are similarly blinkered against our views on climate change and we must grin and bear it when orthodox climate spokesmen get the same easy ride through what ought to be tough interviews.
She says
… we have a rural media more than delighted to take BigAg’s press releases and print them verbatim. Never have I seen a rural journalist ask Fonterra to justify any of their claims.
Not one.
Indeed, the rural rags feed the “town versus country” fire by constantly fuelling it with friction. They want that paradigm, that tussle. They are the equivalent of Fox News for partisan pomposity and venal verbiage.
In my case, one of them openly refers to me as “Lesbian, Rachel Stewart” — which is technically correct, but relevant how?
Because anyone over the past half decade who’s written anything even remotely resembling the truth about the dairy sector has invariably been dismissed as either a nut job, a traitor, and in more extreme cases, received death threats. Ask me how I know.
Therein lies the problem. Until the vested interests can stop with the abuse and obfuscation and admit there’s a problem with dairying’s impact on water quality, we’re all going nowhere.
Which buys the dairy industry more time, more money and more of our collective scorn. Meanwhile, our freshwater resources are dying a quiet and uncomplaining death.
Mea culpa
The passage is well written but the topic doesn’t have to be dairy farming, it could as well be a rational view of climate change. In fact, it’s fun to repurpose it (and if you’re already deeply bored, with your holidays stretched out before you, lying on the beach with the air rippling in the sunshine over the sand, or sitting in the camper van by the stream or on a stump beside the tent up there in the sandfly-ridden bush, you could compare as we go each sentence with the one above to see how I’ve used it—fun, fun, fun):
We have a mainstream media more than delighted to take press releases from the Royal Society, Climate Change Research Institute, NIWA, MfE, IPCC and Greenpeace and print them verbatim. Never have I seen a New Zealand journalist ask these organizations to justify their idiotic 80-year climate forecasts.
Not one.
Indeed, the mainstream rags feed the “we have environmentally sinned” fire with guilt-filled reminders. They want that paradigm, that moral mêlée that sells papers. [artful alliteration not contrived by me deleted]
In my case, many of them openly refer to me as a “non-scientist” — which is technically correct, but relevant how?
Because anyone over the past half decade who’s written anything remotely resembling the truth about climate change has invariably either been dismissed as a nut job, reviled as a climate change denier or, in more extreme cases, threatened with death. Ask me how I know.
Therein lies the problem. Until the climate orthodoxy can stop their deceitful treatment of climate facts, stop forcing colleagues of a contrary opinion out of their positions, and until they can acknowledge and confront the justifiable, powerful questions throwing doubt on the theory of dangerous human influence on the climate, including 240 new peer-reviewed papers casting doubt on climate alarmism published in just the first half of 2016, we’re being screwed.
Every day it continues buys the climate orthodoxy more time drawing salaries and grant money, but puts them at considerable risk of rapidly-declining credibility. The risk worsens as their climate models depart more and more from current temperatures (I mean the older climate models, the ones that inspired emissions trading schemes and ‘climate justice’ initiatives costing billions; the newer models—naturally!—match the last few years’ temperatures somewhat better). It would be odd if models tuned three years ago weren’t looking reasonably good against three-year-old observations.
Meanwhile, the money for vitally needed humanitarian relief or resolution of actual pollution problems dwindles away, squandered on feel-good climate projects of zero social benefit. The government isn’t just dabbling in the marketplace or even interfering—it’s bulldozing the market aside as prescribed by the UN’s Agenda 21 and trying to “restructure” our industry. Not so much of it here in New Zealand, but practically everywhere else. California, Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and more.
Meanwhile, in the climate wars
To highlight popular climate change concerns, Rachel listed hillside erosion (heavy rain), flooded paddocks (heavy rain), droughts (no rain) and tornadoes (rare wind patterns). In other words, she listed three common weather events. Common: they happen all the time. Extreme weather events are like the ordinary ones, but more pronounced than normal. Note: the IPCC says that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events have not increased in about 250 years, but one day they might.
Rachel complains at receiving abuse over dairy farming but dishes it out over climate change. She’s been given a taste of kiwi-climate.
With that said, it’s unacceptable to use personal abuse against those you disagree with, or to hound them out of their job.
The time-honoured tactics of dispute resolution are still the best: confine your comments to the facts, ignore your opponents’ flaws, refute their arguments, not their character, write more clearly than they write, speak better than they speak, and never, ever, lose your composure. Not easy, but if you can follow those principles, people will follow you.
Views: 137
Clearly AGW-sceptics need a gay celebrity spokesperson to convey their message to the good folks in the MSM.
Brilliant! Why has nobody thought of this before?
Milo Yiannopoulos would be the closest we have got. He of the “Dangerous Faggot Tour” has spoken out about climate change and his role in a Green NGO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMVkyfOdfD0
Thanks for that link Andy. Milo was very articulate and very quick on his feet. A pity more “insiders” aren’t coming out and being brave about what goes on at the likes of the IPCC.
Yes, a fairly confident riposte to the alarmists, though a little rough and facts were sparse. Yiannopoulos is easy on the eye and entertaining, too, which doesn’t hurt. We should start thinking about how to mount a public campaign here. I suspect it’s the only way to bring people to our side.
With the UN resolution on Israel sponsored by NZ and various tin-pot Marxist and Islamist bodies, I don’t hold much hope of getting anyone of note to visit NZ in the near future
Hmm. Hadn’t thought of that. Might have to do something by ourselves.
There is never a dull moment in Milo-land. He has just been given a $250K book advance, and the Twitterverse is in complete meltdown
http://www.advocate.com/media/2016/12/29/publisher-denounced-over-milo-yiannopoulos-book-deal
Milo had not come to my attention until now, but there seem to be many people who would tape his mouth shut if they could. Is it because they don’t trust other people to keep their heads, or they don’t trust themselves?
This gets even better
https://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/12/29/censorship-backfires-as-milos-debut-book-hits-top-75/
There are signs appearing in the US which suggest some publicly stated positions regarding climate change are shifting. WUWT reports that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has removed attribution of climate change to AGW, replacing it with a statement suggesting climate has always changed and that the reasons are subject to scientific enquiry. One comment on the subject suggested it is now about two weeks since the New York Post has commented on climate change. NASA has announced that its Chief Scientist, Ellen Stofan, has resigned after only three years in the post. Stofan has been an advocate of CAGW and I guess all of us know that, through the offices of James D Hansen, NASA has been in the vanguard of climate change alarmists. The cynic in me immediately concluded that NASA is safeguarding its Federal funding under a Trump administration by removing a potentially embarrassing figure. It does not take a great stretch of my imagination to conclude that others may well be adopting a similar attitude. Perhaps this means that we might not need to poke our heads above the parapet!
It remains to be seen what will happen after Trump’s inauguration but it is clear that there are some very worried people. The writings of the committed warmists are certainly getting more strident and hysterical.
I note that John Roughan replied to Terry Dunleavy’s request for an informed debate in the pages of the NZ Herald stating that he didn’t think it necessary because the “public” did not want to see one. I’m not sure how he knows that. Perhaps the “Rottweilers” have access to information not available to the rest of us? On the other hand, perhaps Roughan realizes that it is not a huge issue for most New Zealanders. Whether or not he limits AGW opinion writers will be of interest to us in 2017. Do you think he is cute enough to be hoist by his own petard?
Going by the comments on Kiwiblog at the moment (holiday time), I reckon there are quite a few folks who would relish an informed debate about CAGW.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/12/sure_looks_like_a_trend_to_me.html/comment-page-1#comment-1846511
In related climate news, the dept of Natural Resources (US) purged climate change from its website
Apparently it is a matter of “scientific debate”
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/28/dnr-purges-climate-change-on-web-page/95929564/
Maggy,
This IS interesting! I agree. We’ll have to see what we can do about that, won’t we?
Happy New Year.
Gary and Andy,
This applies only to Wisconsin, but if it catches on, it won’t be hard to encourage a genuine debate on climate change even in NZ. They’ve turned the propaganda contest on its head by completely removing statements that global warming is caused by human activities and rising levels of carbon dioxide. The message could hardly be clearer: we’ve stopped blaming mankind for global warming and we will study its causes. It’s brilliant.
Richard, that was why I mentioned the Wisconsin DNR! I am reminded of that saying “One swallow does not a summer make.” But even a single instance like the Wisconsin DNR takes on a larger dimension when looked at in the context of the resignation of Ellen Stofan. Always assuming my cynicism has reached the correct conclusion. I do not, however, consider myself prescient!
Following Maggy’s comment I dipped into some comments on Kiwi Blog. I am not sure if I haven’t already ruined 2017 for myself! In the particular thread I looked at (how many hundred’s of comments?) I noted a couple that referred to climate change (sea level rise, in particular). The rest related to a range of politics, national and international. On this brief contact I couldn’t draw a conclusion that the public of New Zealand is hanging out for a debate on (C)AGW. I could draw a conclusion though that if we who are sceptical of the hypothesis of (C)AGW are concerned about ad hominem attacks on us, we shouldn’t be. They pale into insignificance compared to those offered in the thread on Kiwi Blog I looked at. Perhaps I could draw another conclusion that those who comment in blogs such as Kiwi Blog offer a (post?) modern definition for masochism.
I wouldn’t say that Dec 31st Kiwiblog posting and comments were typical of the Climate Change interactions that occasionally break out. A couple of the C-AGW acolytes weren’t on line.
However entries on Kiwiblog are closely followed by some folks in the MSM and sometimes by politicians/ex-politicians.
The Hon Dr Wayne Mapp and Rodney Hide put in appearance to the “sure looks like a trend to me”.
I was very interested in Dr Mapp’s reply to my question about whether he had any knowledge of NIWA publishing a peer-reviewed paper on NZ’s Temperature Record.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/12/sure_looks_like_a_trend_to_me.html#comment-1846490
I see Climate Debate Daily has come to an end.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
The editors feel that the website wasn’t a success in changing peoples’ minds about AGW.
I often visited the site as it gave links to papers/articles that I would otherwise have never seen.
Nicely done RT. I like what you did there. HNY to you and yours.
This is providing some interesting threads of thought and suggestions for inquiry. Thank you all, and Mr Jowsey.
Ye Gods, Maggy, the comments in the thread you provided (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/12/sure_looks_like_a_trend_to_me.html#comment-1846490) confirmed my “conclusions” about commenting on Kiwi Blog. I think you are all masochists! I’m rather glad that I do not have the time to wade through these blogs. I might be retired but there are some things far higher in my priorities than reading innumerable abusive tirades!
I do note that by far the worst offenders in the ad hominem stakes hide behind a pseudonym rather than use their name. I suggest that says more about them than it does you, and others, who comment under their own name. Not that it necessarily applies to me, but the more intelligent, reasonable, rational, comments seem to appear under real names. But I have little knowledge of sociology and am not really competent to judge the import.
Back on topic again, I think the lack of explanation from NIWA about the adjustments applied to the 7SS can be attributed to one of two reasons. Either they are uncomfortable with the solution they chose and do not know how to explain it, or they have determined that it was wrong. If the latter is the reason then they have painted themselves into a proverbial corner and have no idea how to escape from it. If the former is the reason, it would be really interesting to know what the Australian BoM review had to say about it. If the latter, their behaviour could be classed as unscrupulous. It would have a bearing on the court case one of the commenters mentioned in the thread Maggy referenced.
I have been a trifle sceptical of some actions of NIWA in recent years (or should that be cynical?) A few years back they purchased a new super computer system. If I recall correctly it cost around $22 million and I noted at the time that it was IBM. I thought that they might have been better advised to purchase a Cray—better “bang for buck”. Then I learned that one reason for choosing IBM was that the same machines were used by the CRU, the British Met Office, and several other universities prominent in the climate science arena. That meant that there would be no necessity to port the code for the various climate models to another system. I have no problem with that, and originality is not restricted to one system or another. However, since then I’ve noticed that NIWA has been muscling in to topics in areas previously considered the preserve of GNS Science and Met Service. Topics like earthquakes and sea-bed shifts, and long-term rural weather fore-casts. My cynicism concluded that NIWA was looking to justify the expenditure on its super computer system. That might be another question for Wayne Mapp because I think he was the responsible Minister at the time.
As someone trained in the relevant disciplines (Massey U), I note that each and every public attack on farmers is wrong in detail and in principle (eg water, livestock). As is normal from the same people who support CAGW. of course. Truth is not their objective, but destruction of Western Civilisation. The older they are, the longer their marxist leanings – I know them of old.
I mainly base my judgment of their ‘science’ on their use of part-truth, exaggeration, and advantage of media bias/public ignorance. I look at the data, you see. The urban audience is not by any means all like this, but it has plenty who lap this up like any Kardashian stunt. The quoted trashing of Fonterra is just typical, but many urbanites have no clue even of the depth of their ignorance in this, merely their unjustified feelings of superiority.
Also, they have never been hungry, nor even truly exhausted by relentless effort. Much of what we see and hear on this is of the same low standard as the ‘cute and cuddly polar bears are starving’ lies.