Ken Perrott described so well the laudable principles of scientific scepticism. Who would have guessed he would poke his own neck into a noose he was preparing for us?
He says scientific debates depend upon good faith, but then claims good faith justifies calling us by the despicable term climate “deniers”.
Which is like claiming to rob banks in the cause of honesty. But it gets better. He says:
So what about “deniers.” Well, the difference here is that their “scepticism” is not aimed at improving our knowledge, or of furthering truth, but in discrediting that knowledge. By now we have all become used to the climate change denial activity, its sneering attitude towards science and the facts, and the support it gets from the fossil fuel industry and extreme right-wing and conservative politicians.
Man, this is toxic, poisonous stuff.
Not aimed at furthering truth, but discrediting that knowledge? That’s a nasty accusation, but it’s not true of the Coalition — we practice no “sneering attitude towards science,” we get no support from the fossil fuel industry and what does it matter which politicians we talk to? It doesn’t prove our arguments right or wrong.
As Perrott completely abandons the good faith he lauds so piously above the fold, we’re treated to a detailed rebuttal of our arguments, perspicacious and enlightening. Oh, no, sorry, I mean a torrent of fact-free slime.
This denier groups is rather weird. It calls itself the “New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust,” and is known as a branch of the NZ Climate Science Coalition – a local denier groups with links to the US Heartland Institute and other right wing-think tanks. It originally attempted to register as a charity and was actually listed for a short time in the NZ Charities register. Now it has been removed!
Perhaps their registration was rejected, possibly because of its political nature or its unwillingness to provide financial reports. Or perhaps they decided that there was little mileage (and little support) from going down the charity road and it has fallen back on deeper financial pockets.
It might need them.
His typing adds nothing to his credibility – “This denier groups” and “a local denier groups.” What’s a wing-think tank? I believe English is his mother tongue, but it’s not obvious.
The avalanche of baseless speculations in the penultimate paragraph are of course the clincher and there’s little to add to them, except perhaps to admit that I’ve entirely changed my mind, and to say that yes, of course NIWA did a great job on the national temperature record which they claim in open court is entirely unofficial and doesn’t belong to them.
This vapid piece of non-thinking from Open Parachute is unmitigated garbage, except perhaps for some of the description of scepticism.
Any comment, NIWA loyalists? Or has the cat got your tongue?
I should start on Renowden but it will keep.