This is running very late as the petition has to be back with the Hamilton City Council by July 1. It already has over 1000 signatures but requires 1500. If you need background information see the links below.
Click on image to download petition
The Waikato Times today published a coupon form of the petition and I have attached a PDF of a petition page. If you are interested download the page, print it off, sign it and get your Hamilton mates to, then return to the Hamilton City Council. Probably best to scan and email it to Ewan Wilson who initiated the petition. His email is Ewan.wilson@council.hcc.govt.nz
Here are the other contact details for the Hamilton City Council:
Mail: Hamilton City Council, Private Bag 3010, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand
What’s your point Gus? I had seen the page before and am familiar with these arguments. Some of them I have already dealt with here and will continue to do so. Have you not checked the other articles on my blog?
These sort of claims need to be approached critically – most of them turn out to be misleading or just completely wrong.
Is there any specific claim you wish to discuss with me?
Democracy yeah right. Ewan voted for a tribunal. Total hypocrisy now wanting a referendum. All it is, is him making a bid for Mayor. He couldn’t give a stuff about fluoride. You get these sorts from time to time. I see he’s suckered you into this.
I think it should be an individual decision. Yes I know there is some fluoride in the water but let those who want extra add it to their own water. Paul Connett couldn’t get anyone to debate him when he visited earlier this year. Do you want to debate him when he visits next?
I’m talking about a public venue when he visits? Not an online debate. I think the public deserves this. Nobody debating him just gives him even more ammunition that fluoridation is suspect as happened on his last visit.
Don’t you think he is up to debating the issues here, Gus?
The public will no doubt be getting an earful of activist propaganda in Hamilton over the next few months. I wonder why they have to bring in outsiders?
Get his book “The Case Against Fluoride” written by him and 2 other scientists. One Dunedin dentist offered to debate Connett earlier this year but pulled out after reading this book. Now there’s wisdom as he knew he would get slaughtered. I guess he’s secretly anti-fluoridation now. Paul Connett said he originally thought that ant-fluoride people were nutters but changed his mind when he started to look into it so is now a leading figure to stop fluoridation worldwide. Look up Dr Hardy Limeback and our own the late Dr John Colquhoun. These two dentists promoted fluoridation but then changed their minds when they looked into it.
Well, Gus, if you have read this book I am not impressed. Doesn’t seem to have enabled you to understand the issue. All you have done here is bitch, no arguments at all. And you seem quite ignorant of the actual science.
But for some reason he has impressed you, even if you can’t explain.
It’ll be a lot easier if you read the book. It’s about 20 bucks from Amazon and 14 for Kindle. Check if your library has got. Everything is meticulously referenced to the scientific literature. The arguments are science-based and are backed up with 80 pages of references to the scientific literature.
Gus, I usually read the primary papers myself. I am finding the activist articles are misrepresenting and distorting what is in these papers. And I do check out quite a few of the activist articles – I may even have already done so with the guy you mention. If not I will probably come across him as I will continue to expose the distortion that is going on.
But if you are his publicity agent tell him to debate with me here. If he wants anything further he can always contact me to discuss it. One doesn’t organise these sort of things in comments on a blog.
I’m pretty sure I know who Gus is just from the tone and language.
Gus is a dyed in the wool creationist and climate change denier. He denies evolutionary theory and uses arguments from Discovery magazine. He is also fond of guns.
Why am I not surprised. I am finding a common connection between creationists-climate change deniers- and anti-fluoridationists. In fact, I am a bit amazed at how open some of the most active anti-fluoridation activists here are about some of their whaky ideas – such as fluroidation was first used by the Nazis in thier labour cmaps to subdue the inmates, and that the real reason for fluoridation today is mind control.
Ken, when you refer to “climate change deniers”, are you referring to the climate change as defined by the UNFCCC or the IPCC?
Obviously, when interpreting this “vague theory” (by your own admission) that has multiple definitions, it is important to direct your abusive language appropriately
Andy, you might have noticed I tend not to use that term these days. More often I refer to climate change pseudosceptics or pseudosceptics/contrarians/deniers.
I am using denial in the psychological sense, as in “in denial.” This might manifest as someone who avoids recognising the fact of global warming (by various tactics), or accepts warming but is “in denial” about the scientifically accepted role of CO2 and other similar gases (looking furiously for other mechanisms – your mate Cummings is an example). Or accepts warming and CO2 role but is “in denial” about human contributions to this via fossil fuel burning.
Commonly in normal discourse one does not have n exactly defined definition of the words one uses (as may be necessary in a document) but the meaning is usually obvious from context.
By the way, and possibly as a way of recognising normal language use, what definitions if “warmist”, “alarmist” and “ecofascist” do you use? All these seem to be extremely loose and not helped by context.
Finally, how does this relate to the subject of my post?
First of all, thanks for the clarification. The relevance to the post is none, but you brought up the term in comments. So I see that you have replaced “denier with ” climate change pseudosceptics or pseudosceptics/contrarians/denier” which is certainly very helpful
The terms “warmist” “alarmist” and eco-fascist” are similar but can be differentiated slightly
A “warmist” is someone who adheres to the IPCC party line that global warming is real and dangerous ( as opposed to a LukeWarmer, who holds that global warming is real and not dangerous)
An “alarmist” is similar, in that it represents a.person who seeks alarm in any of the literature.
An eco-fascist is someone who puts the planet above human concerns all the time. For example, an eco-fascist is in favour of grinding people into poverty, thus killing some of them, or may even be in favour of deliberately killing people, such as the Finnsh eco-fascist Pentti Linkola who finds events like the holocaust favorable to his worldview
Eco-fascism is quite a prevalent worldview, I find
OK, Andy, you have used the term “ecofascist” in discussion on this blog and referring to others here. Do you think you used it appropriately? If so, are you prepared to justify its use for specific people here (rather than Finland)?
“Ken, check this out”
Says an earnest and helpful, even patronising(?) individual who reading is totally confined to the naysayer echo chamber (on any subject you care to mention).
might exist which a more scientifically informed public are already familiar with.
It never ceases to amaze me how selective the reading is of “men on a mission”.
They will have heard phrases like “cherry picking” and “confirmation bias” but they won’t have a clue what its all about (mostly).
And if they do read it on Google or Google Scholar, it won’t be with an open mind.
They think issues like this are like a game of badminton or table tennis; it’s all about “scoring”.
The other feature of the “check this out” mentality is that no particular issue is identified. I am asked to comment pn something they can’t seem to comment on themselves.
One of the commenter at SciBlogs asked for my opinion on a submission to the Hamilton hearings “because it had a lot of data and references.” It was a collection of photocopied, and obviously cherry picked, papers.
The commenter was offended when I said my opinion was that he had been naively impressed by the amount of data and references.
Well he asked for my opinion and I thought it was the most relevant feature of his query.
“Denier” is pretty straight forward and in principle can be relevant to any number of debates. Obfuscating the issue by hair splitting between UNFCCC and IPCC is typical of commentators who are irked by a certain label and respond by spurious appeals intellectual superiority.
A denier is someone who persists in a factual claim
a) in spite of the evidence and particularly the scientific evidence or
b) selectively misrepresents the evidence or refers to “evidential claims” whose authenticity or integrity is suspect.
It’s not rocket science.
I see Stuart Mathieson lives in Plato’s cave – only sees shadows. I’ve read the 50 reasons to oppose and it only gives “apparent answers” to satisfy the fluoride zealots. Nothing of substance. It’s more like a political statement to try and protect a policy. Pathetic really.
Personally I don’t see that “denier” is offensive. I am a denier of creationism, for example and proudly so. I think many deniers of climate change are in the exactly same position.
Actually, if we are open minded even the psychological term is not offensive.. We all go into denial about unpleasant things – divorce, death, etc., and I can certainly understand the psychological denial which accompanies our increasing scientific certainty about our dangerous influence on the climate and what it means for the future of our grandchildren.
Andy
I would say Ken knows a lot more about Richard Betts at the Hedley Centre, Exeter UK than you do. So Dr Betts thinks Climate Change isn’t dangerous. Once again no source I suspect because it originated somewhere in the echo chamber.
Here’s a published article co-authored by Dr. Betts. Enlighten us with your assessment. Oh and look Betts up on Wikipedia and other links not in your blogosphere.
I haven’t experienced a descent general frost in Dunedin for two years now. I mean the sort that makes your vehicle do a 360 which was quite common 10 years ago.
By the way, we had 12 days in the Mackenzie when the snow didn’t melt. I was out XC skiing every day of that
Anecdotal evidence of your sad little life in Dunedin is of no interest to me. Presumably you spend most of the day indoors sneering at people on blogs
Gus
If you had done your homework in fourth form geography you would know Selenium is an essential trace element and is added to stock feed in NZ.
Lithium is a trace element present in tiny ppb quanties in all living things. It is widely distributed in trace quantities throughout the planet and along with Hydrogen and Helium was formed during the first moments of the “Big Bang”. It is suspected Lithium is associated with longevity so you had better check it out.
He seems very impressed with titles – put Dr in front of a name and he is hooked – provided they say what he wants.
Unfortuantely, there are always qualified maverciks and contrarians. Critical assessment means we need to always consider the evidence in detail. And especially so when such “experts” are disagreeing with most of their colleagues.
Take for example the “petition” opposing evolutionary science the creationists love. They have about 800 PhDs on the list. Hardly any in biological science of course. But that doesn’t worry creationists. they can bleat about world ranking scientists who reject evolutionary science as if it means something.
When energy builds up in a climate system, weather extremes increase in frequency and intensity. Or do you think Presudent Obama, Heartland Security, the CIA and the Pentagon are part of the giant conspiracy too.
It is currently 14 degrees on the Otago Peninsula. It was recently 18 degrees in Alaska and they are currently weathering extremes with lethal fires and Tornadoes in the US. If somebody said warming isn’t dangerous it wouldn’t have been Richard Betts.
Your confusion between weather and climate betrays either ignorance or dishonesty.
Andy
Because you particularised your little cross country ski adventures in the McKenzie. For every particular weather event I can quote a different one
Climate scientists map these and study the trend lines comparing these to other relevant events. But you know this.
And as for the Richard Betts twitter or whatever it is. This is conversational stuff a bit like this. A nutter with a magnifying glass will always find something that supports his agenda. For example a sample from your link.
Hi Barry
Kevin and I know each other well, and he knows I think this.
BBD
Not sure what the disconnect is, can you elaborate? I thought it was all consistent.
My views on a >2C increase in temperature are that we don’t know what the impacts will be, but whatever they are they will probably get larger the more the world warms (with the added complication of natural variability on top of the long-term trend of AGW of course).
Nov 9, 2011 at 11:07 PM | Richard Betts
If anyone cares to visit this site you will soon spot conspiracy theories and misrepresentations galore.
Bollocks indeed. I couldn’t have said it better. That’s why we confine ourselves to reputable sources and satellite bloggers that don’t misrepresent them.
Stuart, Andy like many of his mates tends to spend our local summers in the northern hemisphere and the northern summers in NZ. Mentally if not physically.
Hence you always find their constant copy and poste references to weather are six months out of step.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Andy, but “scientists don’t subscribe to a 2 degree danger meme” isn’t a revelation at all. This is, after all, the limit people talk about holding the temperature rise to so as to try and avoid the risk of serious impacts.
You may also wish to read down through the comments section, since Betts elaborates, stating that while the impacts of a >2 degree temperature rise are uncertain, they are likely to get larger the more temperature rises.
“Dangerous is a value judgment” and “I do not subscribe to the 2 degree danger meme” are not remotely the same thing as “Richard Betts does not think climate change is dangerous.”
Might be worth seeing if Betts has a blog or somesuch around in which he lays out his thoughts about climate in detail.
I thought the 2 degree target (which seems increasingly difficult to attain) was what the politicians agree to (on advisement from their scientists) because it was feasible and the effects were relatively limited. So who the hell is pushing a 2 degree danger meme?
“Limiting the average global surface temperature increase of 2°C over the pre-industrial average has, since the 1990s, been commonly regarded as an adequate means of avoiding dangerous climate change, in science and policy making.[12][13] However, recent science has shown that the weather, environmental and social impacts of 2°C rise are much greater than the earlier science indicated, and that impacts for a 1°C rise are now expected to be as great as those previously assumed for a 2°C rise”
Andy, that was not an article. The blogger states quite plainly that he copied a comment Richard made on the discussion boards. This means, unless you would care to track down the thread in question, we have very little idea of the context in which he wrote that post, though it looks to be a specific response to this 2 degree meme which is apparently making the rounds.
Given that Richard Betts made the first comment on the article/comment, I don’t think he disagreed with the content. He comments quite frequently at Bishop Hill
Betts is celebrated for engaging with climate sceptics ( to show them the error of their ways). I personally think that is an exercise in futility. Betts like many scientists believe in the cognisant deficit model in which the “truth” will liberate and motivate you. Goes back to Plato’s Socrates (as I am sure Gus will endorse being learned in such matters).
Most people (psychologists tell us) are motivated by avoiding cognitive dissonance which is the mental equivalent of sitting on a nail. if you have deep seated religious beliefs that are premised on an all powerful, all knowing, all good God (PKG) then the thought that God would allow us to meddle or threaten his creation would sit most uneasily.
A quick google of the site and it’s author reveals the true character and it’s agenda. I judge people by the company they keep and Montford and Bishop Hill don’t keep very good (or honest) company. I dear say it will be on the fossil fuel gravy train one way or another.
Thanks Andy on the Selenium and Lithium petition. Yes Stuart fell for it hook line and sinker. He’s pretty gullible. He’s even swallowed the pro-fluoride propaganda.
Andy, so far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with the content. What is less clear than if probably should be is the context. Hence why you seem to have taken a very strange message away from it.
Andy
If you think I’m going to waste my time giving you a run down on the laws of thermodynamics and atmospheric chemistry you’ve got another thing coming. Books and truckloads have been written on the subject. Likewise fluoridation.
The problem with so called sceptics and deniers is not only ignorance, it’s wilful ignorance and that means personality. Narsisistic immunity it’s called.
Stuart, I presume that you are fully conversant with the latest literature that shows low climate sensitivity and I am not going to waste anymore time with stuck in the mud semi-literate trolls like yourself
I presume by your tone that you work at the “University” of Otago
Andy, seeing you raised the question of “semi-literacy” – cherry picking only that research which produces sensitivity values suiting your own prejudices is a real no no in science. The normal process is to critically consider all the research (not just the “latest” or cherry picked latest).
The latest research done by most of the big names in climate sensitivity has more value than previous work.
This is because the science has advanced and we have more data. Not all studies have equal weight. Those based on empirical observations have more weight than those based on models and paleoclimate data, in my view and those of others. More recent work by Author A has more value than older work by Author A
Take for example the “petition” opposing evolutionary science the creationists love. They have about 800 PhDs on the list. Hardly any in biological science of course. But that doesn’t worry creationists. they can bleat about world ranking scientists who reject evolutionary science as if it means something.
I love that list. It sums up the Intelligent Design Creationists perfectly.
Naturally, the climate deniers have pinched the same idea.
The latest research done by most of the big names in climate sensitivity has more value than previous work.
The biggest name is NASA.
Closely followed by dozens of others such as the Royal Society and NOAA and every single scientific community on the planet.
The lastest work is always available. We live in the age of the Internet.
NASA has a website and it’s aways up-to-date.
You have to have a really, really good reason to ignore NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
They do the work.
There is no better source of science information.
This is because the science has advanced and we have more data.
Very true. We do have more data. It’s very useful to go back and compare what the scientific community knew then and what they know now.
The situation we are creating is not getting any better.
Take a deep breath, Andy. I realise than when you find you are not the centre of the universe and the font of all knowledge it can knock the breath out of you.
Fortunately we have some excellent experts who can critically assess all this research. I hear they are putting out a review soon. They should be able to advise us on this.
Wow, I look forward to it. I expect some sanctimonious prick will tell me that I am a narcissist or some other mental illness.
What amazes me about these so called experts is that they think that the rest of the world thinks that their work has any value whatsoever, when in fact their little bubble of academia is basically a morally and intellectually bankrupt artifact of our decaying society
But there’s a notion that everyone’s opinion is valid, My arse! Bloke who’s a professor of dentistry for 40 years does not have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door.
“What amazes me about NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is that they think that the rest of the world thinks that their work has any value whatsoever, when in fact their little bubble of academia (NASA and every single scientific community on the planet) is basically a morally and intellectually bankrupt artifact of our decaying society.”
Is Scrase Andy’s alter ego? Trotting the same line?
Look for those of you out there that any kind of open mind.
1. The thermal effects of CO2 can be demonstrated with a simple experiment any kid can do. With vinegar, baking soda, a heat source (light bulb) and a thermometer. All in a large bell jar.
2. CO2 levels have been increasing steadily for 150 years.
3. This increased CO2 has the fossil fuel finger print (isotopes).
4. Temperatures are increasing globally (trend line) for all sampling points.
5. Sea levels are rising.
6. Glaciers are retreating.
7. Oceans are acidifying (dissolved CO2)
8. Shell fish and coral reefs are affected.
All of this was predicted a long time ago.
The only significant uncertainties are how deep marine feed back mechanisms and ice loss will accelerate the process and when and how much methane release in tundra and ocean beds could trigger a runaway effect.
The future rate of ice loss and sea level rise is also uncertain.
It’s really not all that complicated.
“The world has moved on, but academics and their creaking universities (NASA and every single scientific community on the planet) are full of irrelevant dross.
What a fucking waste of time.”
Thanks Cedric. Already had him slotted. IT. Another adversary Eric in Australia. Same type same industry. Do these guys work out of forensic wards or something?
Let me guess…
Eric fits the stereotype too, yeah? What is it with that crowd? Once upon a time, the only people that were kooky enough to think that NASA was lying to them were mainly hippie, lefty Moon Landing denier types.
Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics
“PORTRAIT OF A CLIMATE DENIER: Sociologists have found that conservative white males are more likely to question the validity of climate change science.
When it comes to climate change denial, not all human beings are created equal. As a recent study shows, conservative white males are less likely to…”
Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics
Thanks for the link. I’d missed that one somehow. I have been reading stuff by Jonathon Haidt on orientation to pro social attitudes and group identity figures prominently there too. I know our remarks have wandered away from the fluoridation debate but you can see the connection there too via empathy and altruism. The same demographic are more likely to support the Selfish Gene approach and methodological individualism.
I would even suggest, only slightly tongue in cheek, that cog diss could be attenuated in cyber reality by assuming multiple identities! Fascinating stuff.
Cedric
I think part of the problem is didn’t quite make it in the Academy hence bitter and twisted; and what’s with the dead thing on his head? Not a hair piece is it?
Anyway I’ve found if you keep pressing their buttons they soon show their true colours which don’t seem very consistent:
“Our philosophy is simple –
We offer a quality service at competitive rates, where transparency honesty are paramount throughout the process.”
Anyway my point is that Libertarianism is incompatible with altruism and social responsibility. Fluoridation like vaccination is part of our social responsibility. Denial is free-loading.
Open Parachute 
Ken check this out.
http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html
LikeLike
What’s your point Gus? I had seen the page before and am familiar with these arguments. Some of them I have already dealt with here and will continue to do so. Have you not checked the other articles on my blog?
These sort of claims need to be approached critically – most of them turn out to be misleading or just completely wrong.
Is there any specific claim you wish to discuss with me?
LikeLike
Pingback: Fluoridation – the violation of rights argument. | Open Parachute
Should we have a referendum to decide whether or not we’re going to brush our teeth twice a day?
LikeLike
Are you promoting that, Gus? Will get your petition out.
I see this petition has been very successful so it looks like Hamilton will get its referendum.
Democracy in action, eh?
LikeLike
Ken you don’t get much – maybe a bit too subtle for you?
LikeLike
No, Gus, I don’t think subtle is the word you are looking for.
LikeLike
Democracy yeah right. Ewan voted for a tribunal. Total hypocrisy now wanting a referendum. All it is, is him making a bid for Mayor. He couldn’t give a stuff about fluoride. You get these sorts from time to time. I see he’s suckered you into this.
LikeLike
The problem for you Gus, is that it is the Hamiltonians who want a referendum – hence the success of the petition. You seem upset about this.
Oh, I asked this before and you ran away, but here we go again.
Do you live in Hamilton?
LikeLike
Do you live in a cave?
LikeLike
I’ll take that as a no, then Gus.
So why all this interest in a Hamilton? Why are you opposed to Hamiltonians having their say?
LikeLike
I think it should be an individual decision. Yes I know there is some fluoride in the water but let those who want extra add it to their own water. Paul Connett couldn’t get anyone to debate him when he visited earlier this year. Do you want to debate him when he visits next?
LikeLike
Is he wanting to vote as well, Gus?
If you are Connett’s publicity agent get him to debate me here.
LikeLike
By the way, who the hell is Paul Connett? Doesn’t sound like a Hamiltonian either.
LikeLike
I’m talking about a public venue when he visits? Not an online debate. I think the public deserves this. Nobody debating him just gives him even more ammunition that fluoridation is suspect as happened on his last visit.
LikeLike
Don’t you think he is up to debating the issues here, Gus?
The public will no doubt be getting an earful of activist propaganda in Hamilton over the next few months. I wonder why they have to bring in outsiders?
LikeLike
Get his book “The Case Against Fluoride” written by him and 2 other scientists. One Dunedin dentist offered to debate Connett earlier this year but pulled out after reading this book. Now there’s wisdom as he knew he would get slaughtered. I guess he’s secretly anti-fluoridation now. Paul Connett said he originally thought that ant-fluoride people were nutters but changed his mind when he started to look into it so is now a leading figure to stop fluoridation worldwide. Look up Dr Hardy Limeback and our own the late Dr John Colquhoun. These two dentists promoted fluoridation but then changed their minds when they looked into it.
LikeLike
Well, Gus, if you have read this book I am not impressed. Doesn’t seem to have enabled you to understand the issue. All you have done here is bitch, no arguments at all. And you seem quite ignorant of the actual science.
But for some reason he has impressed you, even if you can’t explain.
LikeLike
It’ll be a lot easier if you read the book. It’s about 20 bucks from Amazon and 14 for Kindle. Check if your library has got. Everything is meticulously referenced to the scientific literature. The arguments are science-based and are backed up with 80 pages of references to the scientific literature.
LikeLike
Gus, I usually read the primary papers myself. I am finding the activist articles are misrepresenting and distorting what is in these papers. And I do check out quite a few of the activist articles – I may even have already done so with the guy you mention. If not I will probably come across him as I will continue to expose the distortion that is going on.
But if you are his publicity agent tell him to debate with me here. If he wants anything further he can always contact me to discuss it. One doesn’t organise these sort of things in comments on a blog.
LikeLike
Hi Ken
Good to see you have a new mate to interact with. :-))
LikeLike
Not much of an interaction though, is it Ron? What do you think? Surely you would advise Gus to take on the issues properly?
These anti-fluoridation activists really aren’t use to dealing with the facts.
LikeLike
“Nobody debating him just gives him even more ammunition that fluoridation is suspect as happened on his last visit.”
Creationists and climate deniers use this too. It’s quite common.
Why Richard Dawkins Doesn’t Debate Creationists
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure I know who Gus is just from the tone and language.
Gus is a dyed in the wool creationist and climate change denier. He denies evolutionary theory and uses arguments from Discovery magazine. He is also fond of guns.
LikeLike
Why am I not surprised. I am finding a common connection between creationists-climate change deniers- and anti-fluoridationists. In fact, I am a bit amazed at how open some of the most active anti-fluoridation activists here are about some of their whaky ideas – such as fluroidation was first used by the Nazis in thier labour cmaps to subdue the inmates, and that the real reason for fluoridation today is mind control.
LikeLike
Ken, when you refer to “climate change deniers”, are you referring to the climate change as defined by the UNFCCC or the IPCC?
Obviously, when interpreting this “vague theory” (by your own admission) that has multiple definitions, it is important to direct your abusive language appropriately
LikeLike
Andy, you might have noticed I tend not to use that term these days. More often I refer to climate change pseudosceptics or pseudosceptics/contrarians/deniers.
I am using denial in the psychological sense, as in “in denial.” This might manifest as someone who avoids recognising the fact of global warming (by various tactics), or accepts warming but is “in denial” about the scientifically accepted role of CO2 and other similar gases (looking furiously for other mechanisms – your mate Cummings is an example). Or accepts warming and CO2 role but is “in denial” about human contributions to this via fossil fuel burning.
Commonly in normal discourse one does not have n exactly defined definition of the words one uses (as may be necessary in a document) but the meaning is usually obvious from context.
By the way, and possibly as a way of recognising normal language use, what definitions if “warmist”, “alarmist” and “ecofascist” do you use? All these seem to be extremely loose and not helped by context.
Finally, how does this relate to the subject of my post?
LikeLike
First of all, thanks for the clarification. The relevance to the post is none, but you brought up the term in comments. So I see that you have replaced “denier with ” climate change pseudosceptics or pseudosceptics/contrarians/denier” which is certainly very helpful
The terms “warmist” “alarmist” and eco-fascist” are similar but can be differentiated slightly
A “warmist” is someone who adheres to the IPCC party line that global warming is real and dangerous ( as opposed to a LukeWarmer, who holds that global warming is real and not dangerous)
An “alarmist” is similar, in that it represents a.person who seeks alarm in any of the literature.
An eco-fascist is someone who puts the planet above human concerns all the time. For example, an eco-fascist is in favour of grinding people into poverty, thus killing some of them, or may even be in favour of deliberately killing people, such as the Finnsh eco-fascist Pentti Linkola who finds events like the holocaust favorable to his worldview
Eco-fascism is quite a prevalent worldview, I find
LikeLike
OK, Andy, you have used the term “ecofascist” in discussion on this blog and referring to others here. Do you think you used it appropriately? If so, are you prepared to justify its use for specific people here (rather than Finland)?
LikeLike
Yes
LikeLike
Who, in particular?,
LikeLike
“Ken, check this out”
Says an earnest and helpful, even patronising(?) individual who reading is totally confined to the naysayer echo chamber (on any subject you care to mention).
http://www.slweb.org/50reasons.html
So pleased to have found a something that confirms his Zeitgeist, he feels an overwhelming need to share it without even suspecting that a
Click to access response-50-reasons-oppose-fluoridation.pdf
might exist which a more scientifically informed public are already familiar with.
It never ceases to amaze me how selective the reading is of “men on a mission”.
They will have heard phrases like “cherry picking” and “confirmation bias” but they won’t have a clue what its all about (mostly).
And if they do read it on Google or Google Scholar, it won’t be with an open mind.
They think issues like this are like a game of badminton or table tennis; it’s all about “scoring”.
LikeLike
Andy, you are the user of the term, and seem to have used it widely. So you choose.
You could always start with me, of course. I am in the best position to judge whether you are correct or not in your justification.
LikeLike
The other feature of the “check this out” mentality is that no particular issue is identified. I am asked to comment pn something they can’t seem to comment on themselves.
One of the commenter at SciBlogs asked for my opinion on a submission to the Hamilton hearings “because it had a lot of data and references.” It was a collection of photocopied, and obviously cherry picked, papers.
The commenter was offended when I said my opinion was that he had been naively impressed by the amount of data and references.
Well he asked for my opinion and I thought it was the most relevant feature of his query.
LikeLike
Ken, I don’t think you are an “ecofascist”
If I referred to this blog as “local ecofascist” then it was meant as a bit of irony, since you persist in referring to “local denier”.
Actually, I don’t think this name calling is very productive. So I will stop. OK?
LikeLike
“Denier” is pretty straight forward and in principle can be relevant to any number of debates. Obfuscating the issue by hair splitting between UNFCCC and IPCC is typical of commentators who are irked by a certain label and respond by spurious appeals intellectual superiority.
A denier is someone who persists in a factual claim
a) in spite of the evidence and particularly the scientific evidence or
b) selectively misrepresents the evidence or refers to “evidential claims” whose authenticity or integrity is suspect.
It’s not rocket science.
LikeLike
I see Stuart Mathieson lives in Plato’s cave – only sees shadows. I’ve read the 50 reasons to oppose and it only gives “apparent answers” to satisfy the fluoride zealots. Nothing of substance. It’s more like a political statement to try and protect a policy. Pathetic really.
LikeLike
Matheson, would you describe yourself as a “warmist”, an “eco-fascist”, a “climate skinhead” or some other term of abuse that I may apply to you?
LikeLike
Gus
See those things at the end of the report called “References”? You go off and read them as well then call me back.
LikeLike
Personally I don’t see that “denier” is offensive. I am a denier of creationism, for example and proudly so. I think many deniers of climate change are in the exactly same position.
Actually, if we are open minded even the psychological term is not offensive.. We all go into denial about unpleasant things – divorce, death, etc., and I can certainly understand the psychological denial which accompanies our increasing scientific certainty about our dangerous influence on the climate and what it means for the future of our grandchildren.
LikeLike
Ken, you don’t find the term “denier” offensive
Good, then I can call you a denier without any offense
LikeLike
Andy
You decide. They are all terms bandied about in the denial blogosphere.
LikeLike
No, the term “climate skinhead” was coined by me
LikeLike
Quick – this is running late. Please sign the petition to add Selenium and Lithium to the public water supply!
LikeLike
Richard Betts is a climate scientist (climate modeller) at the Met Office. He doesn’t think climate change is “dangerous”, yet is with the consensus.
I guess by Ken’s definition that makes him a “denier”.
I guess quite a few of the 97% “consensus” are also deniers too
LikeLike
Andy
I would say Ken knows a lot more about Richard Betts at the Hedley Centre, Exeter UK than you do. So Dr Betts thinks Climate Change isn’t dangerous. Once again no source I suspect because it originated somewhere in the echo chamber.
Here’s a published article co-authored by Dr. Betts. Enlighten us with your assessment. Oh and look Betts up on Wikipedia and other links not in your blogosphere.
Click to access 11-1121-sr3-changing-variability-in-climates-year-to-year.pdf
I haven’t experienced a descent general frost in Dunedin for two years now. I mean the sort that makes your vehicle do a 360 which was quite common 10 years ago.
LikeLike
I would say Ken knows a lot more about Richard Betts at the Hedley Centre, Exeter UK than you do
What makes you think that?
Please adopt a sneering and patronising attitude
LikeLike
By the way, we had 12 days in the Mackenzie when the snow didn’t melt. I was out XC skiing every day of that
Anecdotal evidence of your sad little life in Dunedin is of no interest to me. Presumably you spend most of the day indoors sneering at people on blogs
LikeLike
I guess you must have missed the days in Dunedin recently, when trucks were stuck in snow drifts and people were skiing down the streets.
LikeLike
Careful, Andy. You will be using the ecofascist word again, or even worse.
LikeLike
Gus
If you had done your homework in fourth form geography you would know Selenium is an essential trace element and is added to stock feed in NZ.
Lithium is a trace element present in tiny ppb quanties in all living things. It is widely distributed in trace quantities throughout the planet and along with Hydrogen and Helium was formed during the first moments of the “Big Bang”. It is suspected Lithium is associated with longevity so you had better check it out.
LikeLike
I think Gus was being sarcastic
LikeLike
It’s hard to know with Gus.
He seems very impressed with titles – put Dr in front of a name and he is hooked – provided they say what he wants.
Unfortuantely, there are always qualified maverciks and contrarians. Critical assessment means we need to always consider the evidence in detail. And especially so when such “experts” are disagreeing with most of their colleagues.
Take for example the “petition” opposing evolutionary science the creationists love. They have about 800 PhDs on the list. Hardly any in biological science of course. But that doesn’t worry creationists. they can bleat about world ranking scientists who reject evolutionary science as if it means something.
LikeLike
Andy
Your link to the Betts remark?
When energy builds up in a climate system, weather extremes increase in frequency and intensity. Or do you think Presudent Obama, Heartland Security, the CIA and the Pentagon are part of the giant conspiracy too.
It is currently 14 degrees on the Otago Peninsula. It was recently 18 degrees in Alaska and they are currently weathering extremes with lethal fires and Tornadoes in the US. If somebody said warming isn’t dangerous it wouldn’t have been Richard Betts.
Your confusion between weather and climate betrays either ignorance or dishonesty.
LikeLike
My link is here
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/9/dangerous-climate-change.html
“Your confusion between weather and climate betrays either ignorance or dishonesty.”
Er, so why are you telling me what the temperature is on the Otago peninsula right now?
LikeLike
Andy
Because you particularised your little cross country ski adventures in the McKenzie. For every particular weather event I can quote a different one
Climate scientists map these and study the trend lines comparing these to other relevant events. But you know this.
And as for the Richard Betts twitter or whatever it is. This is conversational stuff a bit like this. A nutter with a magnifying glass will always find something that supports his agenda. For example a sample from your link.
Hi Barry
Kevin and I know each other well, and he knows I think this.
BBD
Not sure what the disconnect is, can you elaborate? I thought it was all consistent.
My views on a >2C increase in temperature are that we don’t know what the impacts will be, but whatever they are they will probably get larger the more the world warms (with the added complication of natural variability on top of the long-term trend of AGW of course).
Nov 9, 2011 at 11:07 PM | Richard Betts
If anyone cares to visit this site you will soon spot conspiracy theories and misrepresentations galore.
LikeLike
http://bollocks.com
LikeLike
Bollocks indeed. I couldn’t have said it better. That’s why we confine ourselves to reputable sources and satellite bloggers that don’t misrepresent them.
LikeLike
“That’s why we confine ourselves to reputable sources and satellite bloggers that don’t misrepresent them.”
The article was written by Richard Betts.
Do you think that Richard Betts mispresented Richard Betts?
Betts:
“Most climate scientists* do not subscribe to the 2 degrees “Dangerous Climate Change” meme (I know I don’t).”
Matheson:
“If somebody said warming isn’t dangerous it wouldn’t have been Richard Betts”
Misrepresentation?.
LikeLike
Stuart, Andy like many of his mates tends to spend our local summers in the northern hemisphere and the northern summers in NZ. Mentally if not physically.
Hence you always find their constant copy and poste references to weather are six months out of step.
LikeLike
Not to put too fine a point on it, Andy, but “scientists don’t subscribe to a 2 degree danger meme” isn’t a revelation at all. This is, after all, the limit people talk about holding the temperature rise to so as to try and avoid the risk of serious impacts.
You may also wish to read down through the comments section, since Betts elaborates, stating that while the impacts of a >2 degree temperature rise are uncertain, they are likely to get larger the more temperature rises.
“Dangerous is a value judgment” and “I do not subscribe to the 2 degree danger meme” are not remotely the same thing as “Richard Betts does not think climate change is dangerous.”
Might be worth seeing if Betts has a blog or somesuch around in which he lays out his thoughts about climate in detail.
LikeLike
and the latest estimates for climate sensitivity are around or less than 2 degrees
So no dangerous warming, unless the high ends of estimates kick in
LikeLike
I don’t think Betts has a blog. He works for the Met Office
LikeLike
I thought the 2 degree target (which seems increasingly difficult to attain) was what the politicians agree to (on advisement from their scientists) because it was feasible and the effects were relatively limited. So who the hell is pushing a 2 degree danger meme?
LikeLike
“Limiting the average global surface temperature increase of 2°C over the pre-industrial average has, since the 1990s, been commonly regarded as an adequate means of avoiding dangerous climate change, in science and policy making.[12][13] However, recent science has shown that the weather, environmental and social impacts of 2°C rise are much greater than the earlier science indicated, and that impacts for a 1°C rise are now expected to be as great as those previously assumed for a 2°C rise”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change
LikeLike
Andy, that was not an article. The blogger states quite plainly that he copied a comment Richard made on the discussion boards. This means, unless you would care to track down the thread in question, we have very little idea of the context in which he wrote that post, though it looks to be a specific response to this 2 degree meme which is apparently making the rounds.
LikeLike
Given that Richard Betts made the first comment on the article/comment, I don’t think he disagreed with the content. He comments quite frequently at Bishop Hill
LikeLike
Betts is celebrated for engaging with climate sceptics ( to show them the error of their ways). I personally think that is an exercise in futility. Betts like many scientists believe in the cognisant deficit model in which the “truth” will liberate and motivate you. Goes back to Plato’s Socrates (as I am sure Gus will endorse being learned in such matters).
Most people (psychologists tell us) are motivated by avoiding cognitive dissonance which is the mental equivalent of sitting on a nail. if you have deep seated religious beliefs that are premised on an all powerful, all knowing, all good God (PKG) then the thought that God would allow us to meddle or threaten his creation would sit most uneasily.
A quick google of the site and it’s author reveals the true character and it’s agenda. I judge people by the company they keep and Montford and Bishop Hill don’t keep very good (or honest) company. I dear say it will be on the fossil fuel gravy train one way or another.
LikeLike
Thanks Andy on the Selenium and Lithium petition. Yes Stuart fell for it hook line and sinker. He’s pretty gullible. He’s even swallowed the pro-fluoride propaganda.
LikeLike
“Betts is celebrated for engaging with climate sceptics ( to show them the error of their ways).”
Which errors.
Name them.
LikeLike
But Alex Jones reckons “they” are planning to add Li nto our water supply? Don’t you take him seriously Guss?
LikeLike
Andy, so far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with the content. What is less clear than if probably should be is the context. Hence why you seem to have taken a very strange message away from it.
LikeLike
Stuart take some lithium . It’s good for mental stability. Make sure you take with a glass of fluoridated water!
LikeLike
Andy
If you think I’m going to waste my time giving you a run down on the laws of thermodynamics and atmospheric chemistry you’ve got another thing coming. Books and truckloads have been written on the subject. Likewise fluoridation.
The problem with so called sceptics and deniers is not only ignorance, it’s wilful ignorance and that means personality. Narsisistic immunity it’s called.
LikeLike
Stuart, I presume that you are fully conversant with the latest literature that shows low climate sensitivity and I am not going to waste anymore time with stuck in the mud semi-literate trolls like yourself
I presume by your tone that you work at the “University” of Otago
Am I correct?
LikeLike
Andy, seeing you raised the question of “semi-literacy” – cherry picking only that research which produces sensitivity values suiting your own prejudices is a real no no in science. The normal process is to critically consider all the research (not just the “latest” or cherry picked latest).
Your biases are showing.
LikeLike
The latest research done by most of the big names in climate sensitivity has more value than previous work.
This is because the science has advanced and we have more data. Not all studies have equal weight. Those based on empirical observations have more weight than those based on models and paleoclimate data, in my view and those of others. More recent work by Author A has more value than older work by Author A
LikeLike
Take for example the “petition” opposing evolutionary science the creationists love. They have about 800 PhDs on the list. Hardly any in biological science of course. But that doesn’t worry creationists. they can bleat about world ranking scientists who reject evolutionary science as if it means something.
I love that list. It sums up the Intelligent Design Creationists perfectly.
Naturally, the climate deniers have pinched the same idea.
32000 Scientists
LikeLike
In your view, Andy? What qualifies you to critically review climate research?
That’s right, nothing.
I will let the experts do that job for me thanks. Not an ideologically driven blog commenter.
There are all sorts of reasons to discount or advance one method or another – time is not an over-riding factor – that is just far too simple.
LikeLike
So have the anti-fluoridationists n the US.
LikeLike
The latest research done by most of the big names in climate sensitivity has more value than previous work.
The biggest name is NASA.
Closely followed by dozens of others such as the Royal Society and NOAA and every single scientific community on the planet.
The lastest work is always available. We live in the age of the Internet.
NASA has a website and it’s aways up-to-date.
You have to have a really, really good reason to ignore NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
They do the work.
There is no better source of science information.
This is because the science has advanced and we have more data.
Very true. We do have more data. It’s very useful to go back and compare what the scientific community knew then and what they know now.
The situation we are creating is not getting any better.
Global Warming: What We Knew in 82
LikeLike
In your view, Andy? What qualifies you to critically review climate research?
Nothing, that is correct Ken. Nothing at all,
Your opinion is equally as worthless, as is Stuart
Our opinions are worthless
Your blog is worthless. Your life is worthless. Everything is worthless.
It is time to let go Ken.
You have had your day, time to move on.
We need to trust The Scientists.
The Scientists are the only Truth. They will lead us to the Next Level.
LikeLike
Take a deep breath, Andy. I realise than when you find you are not the centre of the universe and the font of all knowledge it can knock the breath out of you.
Fortunately we have some excellent experts who can critically assess all this research. I hear they are putting out a review soon. They should be able to advise us on this.
LikeLike
Wow, I look forward to it. I expect some sanctimonious prick will tell me that I am a narcissist or some other mental illness.
What amazes me about these so called experts is that they think that the rest of the world thinks that their work has any value whatsoever, when in fact their little bubble of academia is basically a morally and intellectually bankrupt artifact of our decaying society
LikeLike
Careful, Andy, you will be calling me an ecofascist again next!
LikeLike
But there’s a notion that everyone’s opinion is valid, My arse! Bloke who’s a professor of dentistry for 40 years does not have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door.
Dara O’Briain: Science doesn’t know everything
LikeLike
“What amazes me about NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is that they think that the rest of the world thinks that their work has any value whatsoever, when in fact their little bubble of academia (NASA and every single scientific community on the planet) is basically a morally and intellectually bankrupt artifact of our decaying society.”
Right. Sure. That doesn’t sound crazy at all.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
LikeLike
Is Scrase Andy’s alter ego? Trotting the same line?
Look for those of you out there that any kind of open mind.
1. The thermal effects of CO2 can be demonstrated with a simple experiment any kid can do. With vinegar, baking soda, a heat source (light bulb) and a thermometer. All in a large bell jar.
2. CO2 levels have been increasing steadily for 150 years.
3. This increased CO2 has the fossil fuel finger print (isotopes).
4. Temperatures are increasing globally (trend line) for all sampling points.
5. Sea levels are rising.
6. Glaciers are retreating.
7. Oceans are acidifying (dissolved CO2)
8. Shell fish and coral reefs are affected.
All of this was predicted a long time ago.
The only significant uncertainties are how deep marine feed back mechanisms and ice loss will accelerate the process and when and how much methane release in tundra and ocean beds could trigger a runaway effect.
The future rate of ice loss and sea level rise is also uncertain.
It’s really not all that complicated.
LikeLike
His actual name is Andy Scrase.
He creates sockpuppets on the internet. You haven’t seen the half of it.
LikeLike
Wow, that’s pretty astute Cedric. He figured out Firstname plus Lastname
Go to the top of the class.
As for Stuart, I can’t even be bothered with your five year old science class. Is this what it takes to be a member of the RSNZ these days?
The world has moved on, but academics and their creaking universities are full of irrelevant dross.
What a fucking waste of time.
LikeLike
The one that gets me is ocean acidification. It’s just…basic chemistry. And it’s happening now. Right now. It’s measurable.
Rob Dunbar: The threat of ocean acidification
LikeLike
“The world has moved on, but academics and their creaking universities (NASA and every single scientific community on the planet) are full of irrelevant dross.
What a fucking waste of time.”
(shrug)
LikeLike
Thanks Cedric. Already had him slotted. IT. Another adversary Eric in Australia. Same type same industry. Do these guys work out of forensic wards or something?
LikeLike
Let me guess…
Eric fits the stereotype too, yeah? What is it with that crowd? Once upon a time, the only people that were kooky enough to think that NASA was lying to them were mainly hippie, lefty Moon Landing denier types.
Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics
“PORTRAIT OF A CLIMATE DENIER: Sociologists have found that conservative white males are more likely to question the validity of climate change science.
When it comes to climate change denial, not all human beings are created equal. As a recent study shows, conservative white males are less likely to…”
(Scientific American)
LikeLike
Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics
Thanks for the link. I’d missed that one somehow. I have been reading stuff by Jonathon Haidt on orientation to pro social attitudes and group identity figures prominently there too. I know our remarks have wandered away from the fluoridation debate but you can see the connection there too via empathy and altruism. The same demographic are more likely to support the Selfish Gene approach and methodological individualism.
I would even suggest, only slightly tongue in cheek, that cog diss could be attenuated in cyber reality by assuming multiple identities! Fascinating stuff.
LikeLike
What a sanctimonious load of tosh. I am less altruistic why?
Tell me Matheson, what have you contributed to your local community in the last week?
Just because you “accept the science” 100% without question, you assume that you are somehow a superior human being to me.
LikeLike
Pingback: Fluoridation and conspiracy theories | Open Parachute
Cedric
I think part of the problem is didn’t quite make it in the Academy hence bitter and twisted; and what’s with the dead thing on his head? Not a hair piece is it?
Anyway I’ve found if you keep pressing their buttons they soon show their true colours which don’t seem very consistent:
“Our philosophy is simple –
We offer a quality service at competitive rates, where transparency honesty are paramount throughout the process.”
Anyway my point is that Libertarianism is incompatible with altruism and social responsibility. Fluoridation like vaccination is part of our social responsibility. Denial is free-loading.
LikeLike
Basically, Stuart, you are what is known in the trade as an “utter cunt”
If you require further clarification please feel free to contact me for further appraisals
LikeLike
What trade is that, Andy?
LikeLike