Tag: Radio

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.

09/07/2008

The Dentith Files – JFK

Kennedy, eh? It’s a biggie. I suspect we’ll come back to JFK again (and again); there’s enough content for a thousand more shows. Still, we did, I think knock this bastard off right proper.

Sorry, no idea where that came from.

Next time… Well, some investigative journalism by yours truly. Well, I say journalism… I’m following up a rather curious article I’ve found and trying to find out a little bit more about why it was published and who wrote it.

The Dentith Files

Undoubtedly one of the events that will be remembered as representative of the 20th Century will be the assassination of John F Kennedy.

Matthew Dentith looks at the theory that Kennedy was murdered by other agencies rather than Oswald himself. In particular he looks at one of the many strange figures in JFK lore: Kerry Thornley.

Oliver Stone’s wonderful, yet ultimately erroneous, film JFK. Tangents include: Doctor Who and Quantum Leap.

Further Reading

A good bio of Thornley on Reasononline.

Check out Thornley’s Confession to Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK. Pretty much does what it says on the box.

08/24/2008

The Dentith Files – (The Lion in) The Priory of Sion

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!

A day late, but that’s what happens when you have sporadic internet access. We spoke on matters Priory of Sion-y and muttered things about talking about NASA scientists revealing the truth, as well as covering JFK next time. No notes; either find yourself a copy of Clive Prince’s and Lynn Picknett’s ‘The Sion Revelation’ or have a gander at a back issue of the Fortean Times for some more details (issue 212, July 2006).

The Dentith Files: A United Europe

This week Matthew Dentith talks about the Priory of Sion, and their links to the supposed conspiracy of the formation of the European Union.

08/11/2008

The Dentith Files – The Incidence of Historical Conspiracy Theories

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!

Well, that went well. I wrote a paper on the topic of Historical Conspiracies vs. Contemporary Conspiracy Theories. I’m not going to link to it (a draft thereof) because I’m hoping my new ‘Similar Posts’ plugin will do that for me. If it doesn’t, then, well, you can always use the search function of the blog to satisfy any curiousity you might have over the matter.

Next time; the EU and Conspiracy Theories thereof. The time after that, JFK. I like JFK; it allows me to talk about another love of my life, the Principia Discordia and one of its authors, Kevin Thornley.

This week Matthew takes a look at historic conspiracies and contemporary conspiracy theories. He compares the two and makes some conclusions about that can tell us about modern society.

07/27/2008

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.

06/29/2008

The Dentith Files – Critical Thinking

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!

Well, it was slightly more than petty advertising. Next time I’m going to spread the love, so to speak, and talk about the International Journal of Inactivism’s Genealogy of Climate Conspiracy Theories. It’s fascinating material and I hope to do it a bit of justice.

This week Matthew explains how he goes about teaching critical thinking by using conspiracy theories and why it’s more important as a philosophy rather than psychology. If you’re into it Matthew’s course is starting very soon, check out the Center for Continuing Education for more details.

06/15/2008