The ANU “Climate scientists get death threats” story fabrication continues to unravel. Again, paging David Appell and Nick Stokes, your second helping of crow pie is served. And Mr. Appell, while you are eating that pie, maybe you’ll find the personal integrity to apologize for bringing my mother into your fantasy inflamed beyond all reason. (Update: apparently not) I’ll remind you of this writing on your blog:
Yes, except Mr. Appell’s viewpoint is the absurdity here, now even more so today.
The Telegraph’s Tim Blair reports that after a ruling last week that 10 of the 11 emails contained no death threats at all, and the 11 was a secondhand account of a dinner conversation on Kangaroo culling, verified as “not a death threat” by the person in the conversation, the story looks even sillier than before:
Retired Canberra public servant John Coochey attended a dinner two years ago at the Australian National University during a “deliberative democracy” project on climate change.
At the dinner, Coochey – a global warming sceptic – enjoyed a friendly discussion with fellow attendees, one of whom was aware that Coochey is involved in the ACT’s annual kangaroo cull. Asked how he’d fared in a recent culling licence test, Coochey proudly presented his licence as evidence that he had passed.
Conversation then moved on to how much better kangaroo might have been compared to the ANU’s food. All very unremarkable, as was the climate change project. Coochey didn’t bother attending subsequent days.
So Coochey was more than a little surprised to discover last week that he is now accused of issuing a terrifying death threat to climate scientists.
But the line that deserves the QOTW award is this:
As a bemused Coochey points out, if these people can’t get a simple conversation right, why should we trust them on complicated matters like global warming?
On a related note, Simon at Australian Climate Madness reports that another eyewitness has come forward and describes why Coochey didn’t bother to attend any more of the conference:
I was the other sceptic who left on the first day – the “stressed” one. You might have seen my comments at Catallaxy, Bishop Hill and Andrew Bolt on this. In case you haven’t this is what I said:
“I was the first sceptic referred to in the updates – the one that was “stressed”. That is a correct description. What I was stressed about was the incredibly manipulative way in which the so-called “forum” was conducted.
For example, Messrs Steffen and his team delivered presentations on various aspects of climate change. We were not allowed to ask questions, or to challenge the multifarious false statements made. Instead, we broke out into groups, with the idea that a group could ask a question. Of course, each group was dominated by “warmists”, and the lone sceptic in each group was a) abused, b) derided, c) not listened to.
The result was that Steffen and co were presented with soft questions that were based largely on ill-informed views, convenient to the organisers.
It is true that I was feeling stressed. But the reason was because while this was billed as an open-ranging discussion, in fact it was a tightly choreographed, manipulative discussion designed to capture an outcome favourable to the warmists. In no way was it a fair discussion.
All this soon became clear to me, and it was evident to me that it was fruitless and pointless to stay. I explained my issue to the organiser, and then left.
I met John Coochey at the forum. He is a knowledgeable and capable person, and I trust his account of the events relating to his gun license.
In fact, one of the aspects that I was annoyed about was that the forum had been billed as a “Citizen’s Jury” which implied that there would be opportunity for the “jury” to hear both sides, to cross-examine witnesses etc. Instead it was a tightly choreographed, controlled presentation of weak arguments from one side, with no opportunity (effectively) to ask questions.
Simon has much more here
Andrew Bolt weighs in:
Column – The terrible ‘death threats” that weren’t
Andrew Bolt May 14 2012 (9:03am)
IT was just too convenient, which is why some of us smelled a rat the day the story broke. It was June last year, and here’s the start of a Canberra Times story that went around the world.
“Australia’s leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats.
“The Australian National University has confirmed it moved several high-profile climate scientists, economists and policy researchers into more secure buildings following explicit threats to their personal safety.”
We were told terrified ANU scientists had to strip their names from their office doors, turn down meetings unless accompanied and beef up their home security.
But it was weird. None of these “death threats” were detailed, yet Labor politicians, Greens, activist scientists and their media sympathisers flew instantly into synchronised hysteria.
(Register free to read full story.)
UPDATE: Some readers asked about wanting to see the emails, and they are excerpted and discussed along with links here and you can get the documents here
UPDATE2: David Appell responds (it was those mean bullies that won’t listen to me!). Laughable, especially since he can’t bring himself to link to the latest revelations which proves his reasoning faulty. Instead, he again posts up the now discredited 11th email as if it were proof and an unrelated publicity stunt video by a Lyndon Larouche supporter who recorded a propaganda piece just a couple of hours after being rightly tossed out on his ear. Appell is unable to assimilate this new information on “Roogate” now making its way around the press of Australia. And this guy writes for science magazines?
Maybe I’ll have to have that crow pie delivered. Would that be considered a death threat?
These people never learn, 10:10. We know who you are, we know where you live, we be many and you be few.
Just to name two although I will be fare and say these where not death threats, just threats.
Lying, cheating, underhanded bunch of miscreants you want to know why I’m a denier (Hope you don’t mind Anthony), it’s sh*t like this.
I smelt a rat as soon as it became known that the alleged threats hadn’t been reported to the Police. That fact alone should have been a warning flag to a competent journalist.
Roogate.
The gift to the skeptic community that just keeps on giving.
The original issue that brought all of this to light was of course the absurdly inflated claims of danger to scientists. Just like AGW, its all done “for the cause.”
Reading about this “deliberative democracy” project is extremely disturbing. The goal appears to be to find out ways in which to socially manipulate the message of global warming.
Seems to me, from what I have read at least, that they were setting up a social “test bed” to try different messaging and techniques to persuade skeptics to convert.
This needs to be looked into. Who set this up, who paid for the “study”, who is behind this? Are there other “deliberative democracy” projects like this going on in any other countries?
Sounds like “manipulative democracy”, not “deliberative democracy.” Scary stuff indeed.
Nick Stokes is economical with the truth. Why not cast him off? His dishonesty and lack of moral fibre is cause enough.
I detect a note of “schadenfroid” — which, since I just made it up, I’ll define as taking satisfaction in seeing cold water thrown on someone’s needless hysterics…
But the reason was because while this was billed as an open-ranging discussion, in fact it was a tightly choreographed, manipulative discussion designed to capture an outcome favourable to the warmists. In no way was it a fair discussion.
All this soon became clear to me, and it was evident to me that it was fruitless and pointless to stay. I explained my issue to the organiser, and then left.
It sounds like the alarmists behaved in the real world at this meeting the same way they behave online at their blogs: grandiose proclamations about how they are providing open forums for scientific inquiry which contrast starkly against the grubby reality that they tightly control all topics of discussion, strictly censor dissenting opinions, and do their best to drive away anyone who persistently questions the orthodoxy.
And as we’ve seen with the ANU death threat fantasy (and Appell, Stokes, etc.), anyone who does stick around to engage them despite the abuse and obstacles is then slanderously painted as dangerous or deranged.
Toshinmack is a believer, the absurdity is their minds can’t be changed.
Obviously they misheard “Culling Roos” for “Culling Youse”. Come to think of it, not a bad idea.
When are these idiots ever going to learn that there is an absolute truth in the old adage “You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time”?
The whole AGW alarmism “scene” seeme to be unravelling at an increasing speed.
I for one suspect that the main members of “the team” are hanging on in there hoping that they can get to retirement age rather than being pushed.
In this afternoon’s ABC Radio National’s edition of The World Today…(which in spite of the fact that everyone in Australia is piling on extra sweaters to keep warm, insisted on discussing plans for Killer Heatwaves!) there was a clear re-iteration of the Death Threats to Climate Scientists story. The speaker, who’s name I did not catch even went on to say that following discussions with University Security and Police that the Climate ‘institute’ or ‘department’ had been moved lock stock and barrel to a more ‘secure’ location.
The ABC has accepted Gov money (PM Kevin Rudd’s $250m and more recently the $250m contract to run the Australian Asian TV satellite service). With the Carbon Tax coming, the economy tanking, and the chilliest winter for many years on the horizon they are squealing loud and long, howling, baying, stomping and shouting the Warmist message…talk about King Canute trying to turn back the tide!
Absolutely appalling behaviour of the ANU VC and the sycophantic academics … heads should roll ! Lying and cheating is the practise of our Labor minority government but should not be tolerated in our academia.
We’ve been covering this one over the weekend here too:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/tony-thomas-grossly-graphic-gun-play-in-goulburn/
I’ve been having fun winding up the warmies on Deltoid too. 🙂
The alarmists really want there to be issues. They want there to be death threats. They would have the justification then to change laws, make “denial” illegal (or at least “treatable”), ban gatherings of sceptics in any number greater than three or four, seize printed and unprinted works that are “anti-science” and generally ride roughshod over anyone who objects to their totalitarianism.
It must really rile them that we’re so polite. 🙂
It gets even better. We now have TV adverts here in Australia informing people about their compensation for the approaching Carbon Tax without mentioning the Carbon Tax. It has become that toxic for the government.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/shhhdont-mention-the-carbon-tax-governments-compo-ads-omit-mention-of-the-measure/story-e6frg6xf-1226355024602
Unfortunately it’s behind a paywall. But the headline says it all…
I blame Greenpeace. Though to environmental activists it is probably difficult to distiguish between a cagw scientist and a kangaroo :o)
“MORE kangaroos should be slaughtered and eaten to help save the world from global warming, environmental activists say………..The eat roo recommendation is contained in a report, Paths to a Low-Carbon Future, commissioned by Greenpeace…….”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/eat-a-roo-save-the-world/story-e6frf7l6-1111114612144
the gillard gov,t is trying everything to stay in gov,t in australia we have a problem with a MP who is in a union fraud case. and I think they are using Tim Flannery,s speach about whow we are going to be fried next summer and death rate will go up and there will be more violence in sydney. this is the same ratbags who say there are death threats to scientists , the same gillard gov,t is bringing a cabon tax in a australia starting at $25 a ton as of 6/1/2012 . ? what can we do to stop this fraud please send emails to gillard and her cronies the facts about the global warming fraud
“Conversation then moved on to how much better kangaroo might have been compared to the ANU’s food.”
One of our secret vices here in Australia is we eat our coat of arms. Although I personally find kangaroo somewhat metallic and emu tasty but chewy.
Simon says above “What I was stressed about was the incredibly manipulative way in which the so-called “forum” was conducted.” What he then describes sounds like a pretty standard case of the Delphi technique, which is a standard methodology in global power coup circles for manufacturing a predetermined “consensus” on controversial topics. There’s a fair outline of it here, and you’ll be surprised how often you see it in operation wherever stupid or wrong policies “need” to be forced through informed opposition.
Death threats are like AGW theory – impossible to falsify – except in this case
I remember reading about this “citizens jury” tactic on one of the leftist strategy sites. It was very detailed, and instructed leftists to break the audience down into groups and marginalize the rational thinkers, so they would start to wonder if their own beliefs were faulty. A quick glance around the net didn’t find it, but I’ll look again.
Be wary of these sorts of affairs, they ARE tightly choreographed and done intentionally, all over the world, regularly.
The left are truly despicable. We need to establish a strategy to deal with this manipulative, dishonest tactic.
Ally E. says:
May 14, 2012 at 1:42 am
It must really rile them that we’re so polite. 🙂
Just don’t get us angry. They wouldn’t like us when we’re angry.
Oh. Wait…
Shevva says:
May 14, 2012 at 12:14 am
These people never learn, 10:10. We know who you are, we know where you live, we be many and you be few.
—————————————————————–
That was GreenPiss not the other Morons, but it’s the same difference.
Bill Tuttle says:
May 14, 2012 at 3:21 am
Ally E. says:
May 14, 2012 at 1:42 am
It must really rile them that we’re so polite. 🙂
Just don’t get us angry. They wouldn’t like us when we’re angry.
Oh. Wait…
==========================================================================
So what’s your point here?
There is an interesting irony to these and many other behavioral revelations ascribed to warmists and to the left in general. A major social initiative underway in many North American communities and media involves the issue of adolescent bullying. It is said to be a rampant and at “unprecedented” levels. It does have tragically serious outcomes at times.
But what is bullying? Its the forced will of others being pushed on susceptibles for the purpose of position, favour, prestige or power… In short, its the expression of the entitlement manifesto that an entire couple of generations have assumed to be their birthright. The kids have learned it, been taught it, by the temper tantrums of their parents. It’s as if an entire generation of parents never grew out of the “terrible twos”.
“Occupy” movements, uncritical “green” movements, shameless, unethical scientists, Oedipus-infected politicians and Messianic bureaucrats – all are symptoms of a generation that never grew up -never had to grow up. The Euro-mess and the Obama White House are the cathedrals of homage to a generational failure to mature. In an age of unparalleled access to knowledge and opportunity to genuinely reflect, learn and grow, we’ve never been more stupid. .
Here are a few death wishes passed by the owner of this blog:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/catlin-crew-out-of-time/#comment-123269
Chemist says:
April 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I’ll be the one to say it: I hope they die so that their deaths will draw attention to the truth of this issue. If they succeed, then it will be just another propaganda
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/04/question-for-catlin-arctic-survey-what-happens-to-the-fuel-drums/#comment-126853
Daniel L. Taylor says: May 5, 2009 at 6:51 am
…Maybe I’m just a cold hearted SoB, but in my opinion they need to freeze to death on that ice. The world needs to see the headline “Global Warming scientists …
I’m sorry, but if the deaths of everyone on that ice survey team helps raise awareness of and opposition to the global warming political train wreck then so be it. It needs to happen.
[Reply: Those are not death threats. ~dbs, mod.]
“Just don’t get us angry. They wouldn’t like us when we’re angry.”
“That’s my secret. I’m always angry.”
(if you’ve seen the movie, you’ll understand perfectly. If you haven’t – see it!)
jjthoms says:
May 14, 2012 at 4:51 am
That sir, is the comment of a complete jerk!
jjthoms says:
May 14, 2012 at 4:51 am
Here are a few death wishes passed by the owner of this blog:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/catlin-crew-out-of-time/#comment-123269
Chemist says:
April 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I’ll be the one to say it: I hope they die so that their deaths will draw attention to the truth of this issue. If they succeed, then it will be just another propaganda
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/04/question-for-catlin-arctic-survey-what-happens-to-the-fuel-drums/#comment-126853
Daniel L. Taylor says: May 5, 2009 at 6:51 am
…Maybe I’m just a cold hearted SoB, but in my opinion they need to freeze to death on that ice. The world needs to see the headline “Global Warming scientists …
I’m sorry, but if the deaths of everyone on that ice survey team helps raise awareness of and opposition to the global warming political train wreck then so be it. It needs to happen.
[Reply: Those are not death threats. ~dbs, mod.]
=========================================================================
Yep, not death threats, just people looking at some darwin award nominees.
@ntesdorf says: May 14, 2012 at 1:12 am
A new species! A BronxAussie! I have only heard “youse” from the Bronckians, and everyone knows about Roos (but who says it since they only live down under). I doubt there is a double jointed contortunist alive today that can make the moves necessary to construe the second hand email as a death threat!
What I find interesting is that Appell used my request for evidence as an example of how skeptics are beyond reason. If he had any evidence, he could have shown it. Instead history shows my question was correct and that AGW promotions- whether about disappearing ice in 2012, glaciers in 2035, document requests from HI, hiding declines, selection of trees in obscure places, or death threats- are in fact liars.
Listening to the ABC the other day there was a news item that these emails associated with death threats had been released. No mention that the emails did not contain death threats – just that they had been released as though this was an outstanding demonstration of openness.
Warmists’ magnification of the inconsequential leads them to inventing problems where there are none – they’re thermo-condriacs.
Threatgate
The new anthem of the alarmists:
“Lie me kangaroo down sport”
All together now:
Lie me kangaroo down sport,
Lie me kangaroo down.
Lie me kangaroo down sport,
Lie me kangaroo down.
Apologies to Rolf Harris
The ANU staff and the scientists (who claimed they received death threats) stood by and watched their fabricated stories go ballistic as the MSM campaign against skeptics.
The involved scientists all lied and the ANU supported their lying.
I condem the lack of integrity of the media companies that supported the anti-skeptic campaign . . . this a sad day for freedom in science.
John
“First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win.” ..Mohandas Gandhi
Bruce of Newcastle says (May 14, 2012 at 2:38 am)
… I personally find kangaroo somewhat metallic …
Bruce, it sounds like they’re serving you the springs! 🙂
Let me get this straight. The same mindset that thinks humans are the problem and need to be minimized, see death threats where they don’t exist…Oh wait that is the same mindset that sees GHGs as a death threat…
Wow Cryosphere today now 10 days behind, they really like holding up the graphs when it goes against them like ice is now NORMAL in the NH and above anomaly in the SH.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
What are they waiting for LOL
Thomas Aquinas said it centuries ago in De Ente et Essentia: “A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusions”. If I may tailor that for the present circumstance: “a lie at the outset leads to mass delusions”.
Does shootin marmutts between the eyes count towards an Aussie license? They are much smaller and I can take both eyes out through a knot hole with my scoped .22 Marlin. Those dam@#$ critters can chew the life out of a barn.
Now, just in case someone here thinks I have made a death threat, you have my permission to tell said marmutts I certainly have. As for warmists I would prefer they continue claiming, quite lively in fact, that the sky is falling.
re the manipulative groups, this has been occurring on the local level where I live (in Virginia) for years. A local or regional nonprofit affiliated with the Sierra Club or other heavy hitter will gin up public worry over a road connection, a commercial development project, new water regulations, whatever. Form letters to be “personalized” (i.e. change “decision maker” in the email to the name of your representative before hitting “send”) are posted on websites advertised on flyers, and “hundreds” of people thus demand action from reps, who will often then agree to a “community meeting” to discuss the “crisis”. Even if they don’t agree, the community meeting will be held, with facilitation from these groups who are obviously altruistic and aboveboard because they are nonprofit (profit is evil) and have “environment” in their name somewhere. Citizens are divided into groups headed by the Sierra Club or umbrella astroturf group facilitator, and then you play the sticky dot game: All questions or concerns are written on the dry-erase board in each little breakout group, and then the group prioritizes the entries by placing stickers next to each one. The ones with the most stickers are obviously the greatest community concern, right? And everyone got to participate and have input because your (stupid rewritten and combined) statements are right there on the board, just like everyone else’s (expanded ones), right? And everyone voted with their stickers (including the employees and facilitators) so it was completely democratic, right? And then an official position paper is issued under the aegis of the head nonprofit in partnership with the local astroturf (as a coalition of concerned citizen groups), detailing the comprehensive nature of the process, and the overwhelming citizen support for the concerns presented. We’ve been playing in this Kabuki for years.
Prima facie evidence of totalitarian coercion by political correctness.
Where can I read all the supposed threatening emails? Does anybody have a link?
If you’re licensed for huntin’ down ‘roos
Beware the bold benders of truths
They’ll say you’re a sniper
And then get all ‘hyper’
To make sure they’re heard on the news
These folks live and die on their professional work.
It was just too bad that the police didn’t understand that the only threats were to these scientists’ livelihoods, not their physical lives.
– We have a new game IPCC Whispers : You whisper a prediction into the ear of the person of your LEFT, who then repeats the whisper into the ear of the next person of your LEFT & so on until the last person whispers it into the ear of the enviro section churnalist of ABC or BBC … The a year later someone gets to come back on the media and say “that’s not what we said at all”
Here’s a link to a pdf describing the delliberative democracy project.
Here are some quotes from it:
the forum involved a group of 35 randomlyselected citizens who had already examined potential climate change scenarios during the interview phase of the project.
So there was an interview phase of the project, yet the 35 people were “randomly” selected. I read someone discussing this on another site (I wish I remembered where) and they said that the selection was far from random and that part of the goal of the project was to assess the effectiveness of changing the minds of skeptics on the issue and the various skeptics included had been classified as to the “deepness” of their skepticism. From what the participants who left early have said, it certainly looks like the sub-groups were not formed randomly, but rather the skeptics were seeded in minority numbers among already-convinced warmists. This quote from the report is appropriate:
Data collated by the research team indicates that the forum had a substantive impact on
the way many of the participants perceive the issue of climate change…There was also a clear
trend towards wanting specific and urgent action on climate change mitigation and
adaptation.
Here’s something the citizens decided after “deliberating”:
There was a strong sense that government needed to take firm leadership role in
relation to climate change, not just through policies, but through clear communication
and symbolic action.
There’s also this:
Participants felt that more emphasis should be put on long-term risk management in
relation to climate change, rather than the short-term “political” decisions that often get
made. The threat presented by climate change is so large that politics-as-usual cannot
be allowed to persist.
Notice the first sentence describes what the participants “felt”. Where did the second sentence come from? It’s not clear if it was from the participants or if it’s the writer of the report helpfully summing things up. And notice the phrasing, “cannot be allowed to persist”. It sounds rather authoritarian and not exactly an example of deliberative “democracy”. And isn’t it interesting that every decision the forum makes seems to be the same – let’s turn over all our freedoms to the government and give them the power to do whatever they want. Quelle surprise!
And here’s why those who left felt they weren’t being listened to:
The Climate Change and the Public Sphere Project (CCPS) project is premised on the
adage that while greenhouse gas emission reduction is a necessarily global effort,
climate change adaptation is local.
The conference starts with the premise of accepting the IPCC scaremongering at face value. Why would someone who isn’t convinced the IPCC is correct want to spend three days coming up with detailed “solutions” to a problem they’re not sure is even real?
Tom, the emails are here:
http://www.wakeup2thelies.com/2012/05/10/read-the-so-called-anu-death-threat-emails-in-full-here/
Pamela Gray says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:41 am
“Does shootin marmutts . . . ”
Background visuals and information:
http://dirttime.ws/Notebook/Marmot.htm
I don’t know how they compare with ‘roos’ – never had that.
This Delphi technique stuff is truly disturbing — not so much from its existence, but the implementation on such huge scales. I really begin to wonder if these people are from the same planet. Unfortunately, they are…
I find it remarkable, given the tremendous damage to the Australian economy caused by the legislation based on the BS the warmists have put out, that there haven’t been real death threats!
The Debunker No 2 BS (@No2BS) says:
May 14, 2012 at 7:27 am
– We have a new game IPCC Whispers : You whisper a prediction into the ear of the person of your LEFT, who then repeats the whisper into the ear of the next person of your LEFT & so on until the last person whispers it into the ear of the enviro section churnalist of ABC or BBC … The a year later someone gets to come back on the media and say “that’s not what we said at all”
You are (almost) correct. 8<)
Rather:
We have a new game called IPCC Screaming Press Releases : You publicize a propagandized press release about a pal-reviewed paper into the paper of the person to your LEFT, who then Screams that press release into the press release of the next person to your LEFT & so on until the last person screams it into the ear of the enviro section churnalist of the ABBCNNBCBS and UN-paid politician … Then, a year later, some so-called "scientist" gets to come back on the media and say “that’s not what we said at all because you can't find any "scientific paper" that says we ever printed anything like that at all."
And they are correct. The "scientific" press did not print the damning indictments and propagandist exaggerations. The PRESS RELEASE process by the so-called scientific publications did all that dirty work for the propagandist industry into the public press system. And people will only remember the press releases and news stories.
Me says:
May 14, 2012 at 3:46 am
@ me (the Bill Tuttle me, not the “Me” me: May 14, 2012 at 3:21 am
“Just don’t get us angry. They wouldn’t like us when we’re angry.
Oh. Wait…”
==========================================================================
So what’s your point here?
Merely that that they don’t like us *now*, when we’re polite.
I’ll spell it out for ya next time, okey-doke?
gerrydorrian66 says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:33 am
Thomas Aquinas said it centuries ago in De Ente et Essentia: “A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusions”. If I may tailor that for the present circumstance: “a lie at the outset leads to mass delusions”.
And the necessity for greater lies, told more often and more stridently, in an attempt to maintain those delusions — such as co-opting the narrative, re-defining words, and stacking the deck, then calling it “an exercise in participatory democracy”…
May 14, 2012 at 12:23 am
The original issue that brought all of this to light was of course the absurdly inflated claims of danger to scientists. Just like AGW, its all done “for the cause.”
Reading about this “deliberative democracy” project is extremely disturbing….
This needs to be looked into. Who set this up, who paid for the “study”, who is behind this? Are there other “deliberative democracy” projects like this going on in any other countries?
Sounds like “manipulative democracy”, not “deliberative democracy.” Scary stuff indeed.
________________________
It is rather common I am afraid. It is the method used to give “legitimacy” to pre-determined out comes. In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics.
David Appel’s remarks are typical: Make up a lie and scream it from the rooftops. When he gets called out on it he whines that YOU are unreasonable. In the words of…me, “Oh, brother.”
Pol Pot couldn’t do better than these yahoos .
The only scary thing is that they have a bottomless pit of money ( taxpayer money ) to use in their fight against the truth.
martinbrumby says:
Roogate.
Sounds good but they already have a Kangaroo-Gate of Ross Garnaut’s most excellent plan to abandon their sheep and cattle business for kangaroo farming and hunting:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2008/10/kangaroo-gate-scientists-to-breath-test-sheep
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2008/s2379277.htm
And Simon Turnill won’t get the original credit as Kangaroo Gate-crasher because of this:
So little warming, so many gates.
Gail that comment of yours looked interesting but the formatting on my normal browser made it illegible (ever-shorter lines).
This project was funded “$378,500 in 2008-10 grants … to work out ways to browbeat climate sceptics” as Quadrant magazine wrote.
It makes me feel sick.
One request here please. Just don’t totally equate “political left” with “evil” because that exists on both sides, and so does good. Name it by organizations and people, and goose-step techniques developed eg this Delphi technique, Stockholm Syndrome, and – I suspect – Common Purpose.
Lucy Skywalker says:
May 14, 2012 at 10:47 am
“…One request here please. Just don’t totally equate “political left” with “evil” because that exists on both sides, and so does good.”
Sorry to have to disagree, Lucy. I’ve been watching the political left, including media, manipulate and deceive us for almost 50 years. They have long ago exhausted any patience I had once felt toward them. By their friends and their utterances ye shall know them. We need to stop appeasing, and take an assertive position against the corruption that’s become a hallmark of the left.
Gail Combs, thanks for pointing out it’s the Delphi Technique. I actually found the original document that woke me up to this:
http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html
Again, it is a despicable tactic that people NEED to be aware of. It is a game. It is a way to pretend to be getting public input but actually cows people into a predetermined way of thinking.
Developed by the Rand Corporation in the 50s to manipulate Cold War defense thinking… then adopted and perfected by the boomer generation who probably watched it being used so successfully on their parents…
An interesting coda to this story.
“The organiser of the Deliberative Forum in May 2010 at ANU, published a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 June 2010, shortly after the Deliberative Forum. The piece was titled “Helping unlikely sceptics see that climate change is real”
The piece includes the following paragraph:
Part of our research involved engaging a sample of participants in a three-day dialogue on climate science and adaptation. It began as a simulation of the public sphere, with fulmination and the use of homily and rhetorical traps rather than genuine discourse. We lost a couple of our ‘’climate sceptics’’, one of whom (quite rightly, I think) felt admonished by some with the opposite view. But, as the process went on there was a more genuine engagement with a wider set of views by all participants. The public sphere flourished, albeit for just a moment and with just a few.
it is clear that Simon is referring to the first day of scientific presentations to the Forum, led by Dr Steffen. And in fact, Simon’s description is one that I would agree with. However, I doubt very much that Dr Steffen would be so happy with that description. So far as I could see, the science presentations were the usual IPCC/Steffen/ANU presentations that have been seen often, both before and since the Forum. It is also evident that Simon doesn’t refer at all to this framing of the first day in his detailed report of the Forum.
As well, it is clear from the detailed agenda for the forum that all the following events on the program were predicated on the presentations given on the first day.
I wonder why he felt moved to write that piece?”
From http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/this_is_how_climate_alarmists_do_polling/
As well, people who know about these things are saying that this Deliberative Conference is a demonstration of The Delphi technique.
Richard M,
Thanks for link to the emails!
linearthinker said @ May 14, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Australian conservative PM Sir Robert Menzies claimed that he had sent Australian troops to Vietnam in response to a request for “further military assistance” by the Government of South Vietnam, a request we now know was never made.
Australian conservative Prime Miniature John Howard made an election promise to “never ever” introduce a consumption tax and then claimed an election win as a mandate to introduce the GST.
I suppose you are going to tell me they weren’t really conservative politicians; they were only pretending and were in reality Bolsheviks or something…
Paul Ehrlich began The Population Bomb with this statement:
Oh noes! A death threat!
Re: The Pompous Git says:
May 14, 2012 at 2:28 pm & 2:35 pm
Some comments deserve replies, others don’t.
Cheers.
[Note to moderator–if this comment is considered off topic and needless troll feeding, I’ll understand if it’s snipped. LT]
Between the Delphi Technique and Cloward-Piven, it’s pretty hard to take any excuse of even “Noble Cause Corruption” seriously. This is pure power politics and sedition.
Brian H said @ May 14, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Sedition: “Conduct or language inciting to rebellion against the constituted authority in a state.”
It’s a bit of a stretch to claim that government funded lackeys of the state manipulating the public to further the state’s agenda is “sedition”. It’s certainly power politicz.
The Pompous Git says:
May 14, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Sedition: “Conduct or language inciting to rebellion against the constituted authority in a state.”
It’s a bit of a stretch to claim that government funded lackeys of the state manipulating the public to further the state’s agenda is “sedition”. It’s certainly power politicz.
—————————————————————————————-
It can easilly be used as a form of sedition. Take it from this angle…if this technique is used against local Government to bypass elected representatives and get a referendum passed that no one wants and is harmful to the state….and likewise circumvents the authority of local authorities, I think you could argue very easilly that this can and probably is used as a form of sedition.
In this form, the Government funded lackeys of the state bypass laws in order to basically incite rebellion at local levels against local Governments to push their own agenda down the throats of local Governments. And that assumes that this is Government funded lackeys using this technique and not activists who are not paid by the Government but are using the Government for their own purposes…..
Its a very fine line we are talking about here, and the delphi technique itself as malicious and as insidious as it is as a form of coercision basically just pushes people into a pre-ordained direction so as to force an issue a certain direction. It is not right, and the fact that climate scientists had this done to them does explain quite a bit once you start to think about it.
Consensus? Well there you go. Why is there so little argument from the scientists themselves? After years of this kind of insidious behavior, the scientists think that any doubts about AGW are crazy and insane. No wonder they call all sceptics “deniers” and other terms, if you had been subjected to this technique as a propaganda tool, I am sure you would think the same thing. (I would stand to argue that this technique is probably fairly wide-spread in climate science if I had to guess…because it would explain sooo much.)
But perhaps we could find more proof that its widespread and from there show these scientists that they have been manipulated and otherwise made to think a certain way using propaganda tricks. Then we can get them to turn against those who would do such things….This is just so malicious and evil that I can not believe this technique would ever be allowed and above all else this technique should be taught to children so that they realize what is happening if this does ever happen to them.
benfrommo said @ May 14, 2012 at 11:03 pm
A number of things I agree with and a repeat of the erroneous use of the word sedition.
Encyclopedia Britannica XXI. 620/1:
I suspect what you reach for is a word indicating the undermining of the will of the people, but the will of the people is not the state. By state I mean the body politic as organised for supreme civil rule and government. FWIW, it is my opinion that the state is treating its electors as the enemy in what I fondly recall being called The Free World.
Lucy Skywalker says:
May 14, 2012 at 10:47 am
Gail that comment of yours looked interesting but the formatting on my normal browser made it illegible (ever-shorter lines)….
One request here please. Just don’t totally equate “political left” with “evil” because that exists on both sides, and so does good. Name it by organizations and people, and goose-step techniques developed eg this Delphi technique, Stockholm Syndrome, and – I suspect – Common Purpose.
___________________________________
Sorry about the formatting my computer has been flakey lately. (I checked the draft copy for bad blockquotes and it was OK. some how the / got dropped a couple of time betwixt and between)
I do not equate the “left” with evil. As a matter of fact it was people on the “Left” who first told me about the Delphi technique. My division is “us” vs the Regulating Class I think Dr. Evans nailed it.
Unfortunately naive good hearted people both on the left and on the right are exploited by the regulating class. It is only when we all wake up to the fact we are being exploited by the blood suckers in government and their buddies, that we have a hope of cleaning up the mess their greed for power and money have made.
H.L. Mencken had it right:
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself… Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.”
It is the fanatics I fear, and having lived in Boston MA I met some very scary ones. Hearing from a square-dance partner “When We take over we are going to kill people like you” and knowing he means it does not endear one to the “Far Left” and the religious fanatics “Far Right?” were almost as scary.
The Pompous Git says:
May 14, 2012 at 2:28 pm
….I suppose you are going to tell me they weren’t really conservative politicians; they were only pretending and were in reality Bolsheviks or something…
____________________________
As I said to Lucy the real divide is the politicians and their blood sucking friends vs the rest of us who slave for them for a certain part of the year. Once the “Left” and the “Right” finally realize that and quit doing the Rah Rah Rah for the home team, (another excellent brainwashing technique BTW) we as a people will watch our politicians more closely and kick their butts when they get out of line.
Personally the only two politicians I like are Congressman Lous McFadden (R) and Congressman Wright Patman (D) The rest remind me of something I scrapped off the bottom of my boots after walking around the farm.
The Pompous Git says:
May 14, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Paul Ehrlich began The Population Bomb with this statement…
___________________________
Ehrlich’s Co-Author Holdren is now Obama’s Science advisor. All three are considered “Left” (I really disliked Bush too) As Lucy said there is “Evil” on both sides and from what I can tell “evil” rises to the top because they are wiling to stab people in the back and hide the bodies.
This Delphi technique stuff is truly disturbing — not so much from its existence, but the implementation on such huge scales. I really begin to wonder if these people are from the same planet. Unfortunately, they are…
Said government and lackeys are already substantially compromised by the Progressive infiltration; it controls the WH, DoJ, DoE, EPA, and much more, already. It is working feverishly to sedit the rest. 😉
Ben, either you believe in democracy or you don’t. There is nothing new about governments, or other powerful groups, trying to influence public opinion. You must have missed the history of the Reformation.
Using arguments about sedition or its first cousin, treason, are usually a refusal to accept the challenge of battling it out in the marketplace of ideas. It looks like a shortcut to success.
In fact, prices in the marketplace of ideas have shifted significantly in the last few years, for good reason, and cries of ‘sedition’ and ‘treason’ have nothing to do with it.
gerrydorrian66 says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:33 am
Thomas Aquinas said it centuries ago in De Ente et Essentia: “A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusions”. If I may tailor that for the present circumstance: “a lie at the outset leads to mass delusions”.
—————————————————–
Who knew that St Thomas was a seer about computer models? He was a very wise man, which is why even non-believers like me still read his stuff today.
As for the Delphi thing, I think people need to get a grip. Any half-competent tent preacher and earlier collector of followers in Europe knew those techniques long ago. Just because someone wrote it down and gave it a fancy name doesn’t mean that some new, sinister conspiracy is afoot.
The Left & Right discussion is not fruitful because they are both names for no particulate philosophy, representing mixed bags of often conflicting concepts within Left & within Right. So I suggest beginning the discussion again but with the question: Does a person or group of people within a country advocate that the government should in general as a principle make laws that allow one group of its citizens to take anything from a citizen involuntarily for the benefit of another citizen? They would be some variant of pro-collectivists. Those that oppose variations of involuntary taking would be called some variant of pro-individualists.
If a particular person is an explicit collectivist that will imply they advocate a government with high levels of authoritarianism in principle with no restriction on its use. Likewise if a particular person is an explicit individualist that will imply a government of minimalist and strictly contained authoritarianism. You can find both in the Left and both in the Right.
The key for discussion is what is the nature of human beings as homo sapiens; what enhances our species existence as knowing animals? What government principles support the specific nature of a human and what government works against a human’s nature?
One cannot avoid these questions if one is to make sense of what either the Left or Right are proposing.
John
@the pompous git,
I did give examples of how this could be used for sedition against local Governments and frankly it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if this technique was indeed used to subvert the will of the elected or appointed local adminstrators for certain areas. In this case, I am not talking the “will of the people” but actual sedition as the dictionary definition states it.
I am not saying its used like this, but this technique is dangerous because of this and I think we all need to be aware of it, know how to combat it, and let others know. As long as you educate yourself and others, this technique is rather worthless as just a few people can turn the technique against those who use it.
@Johanna,
Peddling influence is one thing, but using malicious and manipulative techniques that are borderline brain-washing is another. Whether or not this is a conspiracy is besides the point. I never pointed to the how it is a conspiracy, I just pointed to how it could be bad, and this in itself is why people need to educate themselves on this technique.
We know for a fact that this technique was used on climate scientists and yes it is not a new technique by any stretch of the imagination to get people to “all believe the same ways and to ostracize anyone who is different.”
But you would expect that society would be beyond going into religious bents like that nowadays within science itself. That is not science….and just because some people are aware of it and are immune to it, others are not. So there you go. We have science being manipulated by other people for their own purposes by manipulating the scientists themselves.
As for your assumption that talking about this as sedition is missing the point. I did not state that this is sedition by just using this technique, I showed how it “could be used” in that fashion. As with any technique that is somewhat unsavory, the purpose to which it is used determines whether it can be classified as X or Y.
And by stating “Using arguments about sedition or its first cousin, treason, are usually a refusal to accept the challenge of battling it out in the marketplace of ideas” You are guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of. You are shutting down the argument by stating that I am unwilling to accept any other ideas with no proof except that by just simply bringing up a certain topic I am wrong.
Correction.
My comment should read,
“The Left & Right discussion is not fruitful because they are both names for no
particulateparticular philosophy . . . ”John
Excuse me, but, if you haven’t prepared “your case” beforehand and ‘worked the politics’ with (as in ‘met with’, written letters to, corresponded with and maybe even prepared reports for) those involved (ever heard of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making as issued by a regulating arm of our federal government? The FCC does this with regularity in a process I have some familiarity with), you’re going to find out in short order that there are those persons and individuals that have made those kinds of preparations! Getting up to speak at the podium anecdotally (as most people are prone to do) at the last ‘moment’ is not really the way to ‘handle’ these matters; this is not a court, nor does a public event like this represent a ‘parade’ of expert witnesses appearing appearing before the panel that has rule-making authority. Those things have taken place in most cases already, and indeed that event may be to simply gauge public sentiment (a few grumblers notwithstanding, of which there will always be a few johnny-come-latelys to these events.)
So, in closing, I would contend there is nothing ‘nefarious’ going on in these cases, in these public-meet events, except, perhaps one’s perception of same …
.
Gail Combs says on May 14, 2012 at 9:06 am:
It is rather common I am afraid. It is the method used to give “legitimacy” to pre-determined out comes. In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics.
_________________________
_Jim says: @ May 15, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Excuse me, but, if you haven’t prepared “your case” beforehand and ‘worked the politics’ with……
_________________________
_jim,
Quit trying to teach your Grand Mother to Suck Eggs.
How the [SNIP: !!!!! I didn’t think Grand Mothers even knew about those words!!!!!! -REP] do you think I am became aware of all this crap? It is not in the news papers or on TV or on radio. I learned it from dealing with politicians et al. over a long period of time.
OH, and _jim? I am a PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED FACILITATOR!