Tag: Climate Change

Worst Conspiracy Theory Ever

Well, possibly not, but Poneke, who swallows all the codswallop when it comes to Conspiracy Theories concerning Anthropogenic Climate Change, has suggested that there is a Conspiracy on the part of the Science Media Centre (who run SciBlogs) to increase their site hits by attacking Anthropogenic Climate Change Skeptics like Poneke ((He points to two particular posts, one by Grant Jacobs and the other by Ken Perrott, as exemplars of the conspiratorial machinations of the SMC and its SciBlogs.)).

I draw your attention to this for two reasons.

The first is that Poneke’s post really does look like a typical example of the kind of persecution complex many Conspiracy Theorists express when they get criticised for, in many cases, presenting overwrought, bad, arguments in favour of their position. Rather than admit that their reasoning might be specious they resort to inferring the real reason for criticism is that the critics are conspiring against them.

The second reason is that if it turns out Poneke is right, then I’d like in on that SMC action; if criticising Poneke is going to get me some hits, then add me to the Conspiracy, guys. I mean, as we saw with the ‘robust’ commentary here during my ‘flirtation’ with the 9/11 Truth Movement, I’m either a dupe to the Conspiracy or a participating member of it. Now, I’m fairly sure I was neither in regards to 9/11; I was just arguing from the evidence and looking at the inferences, and one result of that, not one I intended, was a fairly good increase in site hits over the fortnight. However, those ‘fans’ ((Really must stop using air quotes.)) have gone away and the comment threads are all empty again.

So, mysterious Conspirators of Climate Change, let me in! ((Actually, maybe I am already in on it; I have been given a tentative invitation to join the SciBlog team in the ‘second wave,’ which all rather sounds like maybe I am a potential shill for the Conspiracy after all.)) Or don’t. Either way, no matter what you do, certain Conspiracy Theorists will take that as proof positive something is up.

Red Bed Green Dead

I promised you… a golden ring? No, thesis material and I am the first to admit that I have not given unto you.

It’s all my fault; editing the current chapter has been a bit of a chore and I’m not sure what to give out and what to bury with the rest of my philosophical corpses.

But no matter; Ian Wishart has written a book ((Which has received good reviews from Vincent Gray and Bob Carter, which must mean something to someone.)) and someone has taken time out to read it. Not me; I wasted too much time on ‘Eve’s Bite’ to want to devote another afternoon to a Wishart ‘thriller’. But the fine people over at Hot Topic have done the job for me.

Still, I’m going to have to read at least a section of it if this section of the review is to be believed:

Having disposed of the science, he moves on to consider why this great propaganda coup has been undertaken. Turns out it’s all the fault of an evil cabal of child-eating greens, supported by mega-rich capitalists (George Soros gets a chapter to himself) who are intent on imposing socialism on the world through the UN. So all the world’s climate scientists, save a brave few supported by the downtrodden fossil fuel companies of the world, are complicit in a global conspiracy to impose socialism and world government.

Right, back to work. I promise to give you stuff to read soon. Gods above and below, I’m beginning to treat you people like my supervisors.

Smoking does not cause Global Warming

Sometimes, in the process of investigating things you discover weird links. Today’s ‘What the?’ moment comes from `Forces International,’ a pro-(cigarette-)smoking site that tells you the `truth’ about smoking (apparently it’s not just non-lethal but also lovely, smells good, improves your sex life, fixes cracks and was something Jesus did). Browsing about their site I hit upon the multimedia portal and discovered that they host, amongst their pro-smoking propaganda, videos and multimedia galore on the `Global Warming Scam.’

Interesting bed fellows. It would be wrong of me to suggest that this irrevocably taints the Climate Inactivists because, quite possibly, they’re embarrassed by the association. It does kind of make sense, though, that the pro-smoking lobby would seek comfort and succour from the Inactivists. Both contend the scientific consensus on matters pertaining to them is wrong and both think the debate has been politicised.

And, of course, both are wrong.

Back to the `researching.’

Update: Look at this list of topics Forces members are concerned about.

The Dentith Files – Peter J. Morgan and the “Flat White Magazine”

Next time we’re taking a break from Conspiracy Theories to talk about the Paranormal.

The Dentith Files

This week Matthew Dentith looks at Peter J. Morgan and a piece he wrote which was placed in `The Flat White Magazine.’ In what appears to be an ad for the NZ Science Climate Science Coalition Matthew finds this:

Further, there is a hidden agenda, in that “human-caused global warming” is merely a subterfuge for global governance, by which powerful forces are hard at work behind the scenes to forge a “one world government” controlled by the world’s power elite.

Matthew has a look at the relationship between the NZCSC and Morgan. He also looks at how movements can hold within themselves people whose views are probably contradictory to the main group but who are tolerated to a certain extent.

Some notes

In what appeared to be an ad for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, written by Peter J. Morgan and placed in `The Flat White Magazine’ the following piece of prose was found:

Further, there is a hidden agenda, in that “human-caused global warming” is merely a subterfuge for global governance, by which powerful forces are hard at work behind the scenes to forge a “one world government” controlled by the world’s power elite.

[If you’d like to read more, then go here. It starts on page 3 but the juicy material is to be found on page 6.]

This is a clear statement of a Conspiracy Theory and probably would be quite damaging to the NZCSC if it were to appear on their official website. Whilst members of the NZCSC (and those sympathetic to it) may be seen to believe in these kinds of Conspiracy Theories they are not something a group, trying desparately to present themselves as the sensible scientific approach to dealing with claims about anthropogenic climate change, would like to be associated with.

Or so you would think. The NZCSC states their aims as:

To represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate change.

Now, I’ve been to the NZCSC website (link) and undertaken a search for terms such as ‘one world government’ and ‘new world order’ and these terms are strikingly absent. So is Peter J. Morgan; an ardent supporter he would appear to be but he does not appear to be one of the select few seen fit to write for the NZCSC.

I contacted the NZCSC for comment on Morgan’s article. The secretary for the NZCSC, Terry Dunleavy (former co-ordinator of the Bluegreens, National’s attempt to get on the Green bandwagon), said that Morgan is not a member of the organisation but is entitled to his opinion. He then directed me to read Nigel Lawson’s An Appeal to Reason,' arguing that Morgan's view is not so wacky after all (Lawson thinks the modern environmentalist movement is redressed Communism). It's hard to know whether Dunleavy agrees with Lawson or just accepts that this is just part of the standard discourse on his side of the debate. He doesn't oppose people having opinions like that of Morgan's, even though I would, personally, be very concerned that someone advertising my organisation specifically links its opponents with theNew World Order/One World Government’ Conspiracy Theory.

There are a few points worth raising here. The first is that Dunleavy says that Morgan is entitled to his opinion. This somewhat suggests more than `We should respect the beliefs of others, no matter how wacky’ because I am sure Dunleavy does not think I am entitled to my belief that anthropogenic climate change is real, poses a serious threat to our continued existence, et al. Dunleavy, being the secretary for an organisation that proudly reproduces press releases that tell us everything is okay and that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax would hardly say that my beliefs are warranted (and note that I’m not imputing here a conspiracy theory that says that Dunleavy knows the errors of his ways and yet still seeks to pervert natural justice; I think Dunleavy really believes in his cause, even though the evidence is against him). So it seems by saying Morgan is entitled to his opinion Dunleavy is making the strong claim that Morgan’s view has some merit. The fact that Dunleavy then pointed me to the Lawson book seems to confirm that.

A second point here is that Dunleavy might well understand why people like Morgan have the views they do, even if people like Dunleavy aren’t convinced by them. If you spend any time examining the 9/11 Truth Movement (like I have) you will notice that there are a lot of mutually contradictory Conspiracy Theories under that umbrella term, and people within the community have quite loud arguments about which is the most likely account of what happened in September 2001. Some members of the 9/11 Truth Movement don’t like the notion that they represent a general set of Conspiracy Theories rather than one major conspiratorial alternative to the official story, but other members do. They see the different intersecting, contrary, even contradictory Conspiracy Theories as a route to getting the truth out there. Sure, some of these theories will get thrown out, disproved or become unpopular, but the more rigourous debate the better.

Of course, one of the suspected malign reasons why people might support such `rigorous’ debating is the more noise your group makes the better the chances that the other side won’t get heard over the noise. If you can make the 9/11 Truth Movement loud maybe the official story will get drowned out.

Sometimes I think that is the real goal of Climate Change Inactivists…

Dunleavy passed my concerns over the article to Morgan himself, which was either good or bad of Dunleavy, depending on your view of the situation. Dunleavy claims that I mischaracterised his words (he chastised me for a lack of critical reading skills), saying that my claim:

Morgan suggests a plot by environmentalists to create a one world government

is different from his claim (which I repeat):

[T]here is a hidden agenda, in that “human-caused global warming” is merely a subterfuge for global governance, by which powerful forces are hard at work behind the scenes to forge a “one world government” controlled by the world’s power elite.

Now, I think that I made a clear inference from what he wrote; he suggests an agenda, on the part of those supporting the science behind anthropogenic climate change, to create a one world government.' Given that he then directs readers to view the videoGlobal Warming or Global Governance,’ a video that identifies the modern enviromentalist movement (and its leaders) as being behind the push towards global governance, it is not a step too far to paraphrase his argument in the way that I did. It is a clear and logical inference to take from the article. He may want to deny said inference, in part by arguing that this is not what he meant, but given what he wrote I say that this is a fair assessment of his words.

Now let me give Morgan his due; he may well have written in haste, because in correspondence he described his position as more a belief that, somewhere in the background, there lurks a power elite seeking governance. Thus they can be seen to using the controversy rather than orchestrating it. Still, that isn’t what he said in `The Flat White Magazine’ article.

Which brings me to a piece of complete folk psychology; I’m beginning to think that a lot of inactivists oppose the notion of anthropogenic climate change precisely because it is their generation that caused it, their generation that will not have to really suffer the consequences of it and their generation who take very little responsibility for their actions. They know, implicitly, that they are going to get away with doing nothing.

I’d like to think I’m wrong, but, then again, it’s also nice to have a Conspiracy Theory I can call my own.

Further reading

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

The Flat White issue containing the article in question.

Getting Your Game Together

If I were you (and I’m not) I’d be beginning to think that I don’t read much of the blogosophere, given just how few sites I regularly link to. I’m saying this because I’m about to link (again) to the `International Journal of Inactivism,’ where Frankbi has uncovered what I suspect is a Conspiracy (Theory?) in the making:

Well, we all know what “information sharing” means here. But what about “coordinated local activism”? How does it work? Here’s a first guess:

Alice: Hello Mr. Editor, I’m Alice from the newly-formed Friends of Methane group, a member of the International Climate Science Coalition. I read your story that […]

Bob: Good morning, I’m Bob, I heard from the International Climate Science Coalition about the story in your paper that […]

Tom: Dear Editor, I am Tom Harris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition. I refer to your news article titled […]

Nah, that won’t work well, because the editors will quickly get wind of what’s going on. And besides, if they also know that the ICSC is behind the propagation of the said news story in the first place, then it’ll be pure disaster! Of course, this means that the ICSC will have to hide the fact that it’s behind all the “grassroots activism”…

The Dentith Files – Climate Change

Between 2008 and 2010, Matthew Dentith first joined 95bFM’s Simon Pound, then José Barbosa, on Sunday mornings to talk about conspiracy theories. Listen, as they say, again!

Another fortnight, another radio slot. You’ll have to forgive the lack of posting at the moment; I’m in the midst of an office move and I’m ill (once again). Updating the blog is very much second fiddle at the moment to packing, writing and gazing (with dead, dead eyes) into a monitor.

Anyway, Climate Change. This material really isn’t entirely my own; I’ve cribbed most of it from the International Journal of Inactivism but I feel no guilt because a) it’s good and b) I’ve given credit where credit is due (and, as a late addition, I’ve extrapolated).

Also, beware the Battlestar Galactica spoilers. Sorry, FHG.

The Dentith Files

This week Matthew looks at climate inactivism, the climinati and genealogy.

Have a listen and then have a look at the International Journal of Inactivism.

Here’s the Heartland Institute’s website and a Source Watch article on the loonies.

Climate Inactivism, the Climinati and Genealogy

Frankbi, of the International Journal of Inactivism (frankbi.wordpress.com) has been leading the charge to label Climate Change Skeptics as Inactivists. It’s logical, really; certain skeptics have labelled believers in Climate Change as activists, in part because it denotes people advocating we change our excessive lifestyles (which is very unAmerican) and in part because it taps into a certain meme beloved of Climate Change Skeptics; that modern day environmental activists are just socialist-cum-communist activists of yesteryear.

(Which we could delve into in the show if you want…)

Frankbi’s response is to label the skeptics Inactivists. If activism is bad, he says, then surely inactivism is good, and its rather fitting given what the inactivists want us to do, doom the human race by doing nothing whatsoever to mitigate, halt or reverse anthropogenic climate change.

Anyway, in the last month and a bit the International Journal of Inactivism, dedictated to inactivism, inactivists, inaction, and inactionology, especially with regard to global warming and mitigating it, has been working up a geneology of Climate Change Conspiracy Theories, those theories that claim that the IPCC and the general consensus in the scientific community that Climate Change is real and we are the cause of it, is nothing but an elaborate Conspiracy Theory by, well, sinister architects of doom.

(In an ideal world the Invader Zim “Doom” song would go here.)

So, who are these sinister figures and what can be said about them?

The first set of sinister figures are, of course, the US Senate who, under Al Gore, put financial pressure (by way of funding, grants and the like) to ensure that the “right” conclusions were being drawn. This, at least, is one of the many Conspiracy Theories put forward by Dr. Richard Lindzen. Now, Dr. Lindzen is a respected scientist but he does seem to have a bee in his proverbial bonnet about Climate Change. In 1992 he accuses Al Gore and his cronies of pushing an agenda. In 96 he accuses his enemies of incentivising climatologists to produce the new results (a new Humvee for every anthropogenic result, maybe) and in 2006 he simply labels climatologists (of the anthropogenic persuasion) of just being evil, out to scare politicians and the public. These, then, are the climate equivalent of the Gnomes of Zurich, the evil figures who just want to cause mayhem, the Loki figures of our age.

A seemingly more balanced Conspiracy Theory is put forward by Roger Pielke. He thinks that both sides of the Climate Change debate, the activists and the inactivists, are in it for their own good and that by making out that the issue isn’t settled then they can just generate all the more funding for themselves. This turns out to be an even more evil version of Lindzen’s latter Conspiracy Theory. The debate, to Pielke, is settled; there is no Climate Change occurring, but Activists continue to promote the idea that it is to get more funding and, worryingly enough, the Inactivists let them. All Climatologists, in this picture, are potential conspirators and none of them can be trusted, which is problematic since it seems we can’t say the debate is settled after all, giving that we can’t trust the pronouncements of scientists and politcal scientists like Pielke, who gets his information from the scientific community, is either a shill for the conspirators or just as easily fooled by them as you or me.

This Conspiracy Theory got a shot in the arm recently when the Heartland Insitute released its list of 500 scientists critical of anthropogenic climate change. When the scientific backlash started, with people claiming that their work had been misinterpreted, et al, the publisher, Dan Miller, released a statement which included the following:

In the highly politicized debate over climate change, it isn’t surprising that some scientists now regret that their own scholarly work has contradicted key tenets of the alleged “consensus” promoted by Al Gore and other global warming alarmists. I can sympathize with their plight, but I won’t be a party to their self-serving efforts to hide the implications of that research.

(Which means nothing a climatologist can say will persuade Dan Miller that he is wrong about them; nicely unfalsifiable…)

But wait, there’s more.

Did you know that Magaret Thatcher is a communist? Well, Richard S. Courtney, editor of a Coal Mining journal, certainly seems to think so. Thatcher set up the Hadley Centre of Climate Prediction and Research merely to make her view of anthropogenic climate change (she’s for it, which means she thinks it is happening but probably also likes that it is) legit and thus justify her weakening the power of the coal miner unions when she had her stranglehold on the UK. This is Conspiracy Theory can be found elsewhere, such as in the writings of Louis Hissink of the Lavoisier Group. The Lavoisier group has been described as a body devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics, discovered by among others, the famous French scientist Antoine Lavoisier, cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry.

Of course, revenge is the best dish served cold and who better to get revenge than the Third World, who have also been blamed for the Climate Conspiracy Theories. Basically, the Third World seek to resurrent the New International Economic Order and make money of rich Western Nations by claiming that their lack of environmental control is destroying the Third World and could they have some money to fix things up, please. The enviromentalists, who are communists, after all, support the Third World kleptocrats as it means the destruction of the American way of life, which is the goal of any proper communist, don’t you know.