Proposal for voluntary compliance of FOI law by sceptics

36 Responses to Proposal for voluntary compliance of FOI law by sceptics

1. neilcraig says:

   15 December 2011 at 12:04

   Sorry but think this would be sticking a target on our chest. It would, as you say, involve an impractical amount of work and when, as inevitably would happen, something goes unanswered, would get us hammered. Being small amateur groups, unlike the massive government funded “raising awareness” organisations in a selling point for us so we need not fight on their field. I am sure the GWPF already has to publish its receipts as charities like FoI do.
   I also note that while “environmentalists” regularly accuse us of being funded bt “bog oil” or some other group allegedly benefiting from global catastrophe they either never produce any evidence or find funds so trivial or links so distant as to be ridiculous. By comparison one government quango alone, NERC, gets £450 million and seems to do nothing but promote alarmism.
2. Scottish Sceptic says:

   15 December 2011 at 15:34

   But Neil, do you notice anyone like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth doing likewise? The very fact we try to comply suggests that we actually have nothing to hide. And, as you say, eventually there will be a story …. but what will be the nature of it:
   1. That a group trying to comply doesn’t have the resources to do … so where’s all this money?
   2. That a group voluntarily provides information which is detrimental to its aims, in compliance with a law … in very stark contrast to the UEA and Penn State university. Will the story really be: “sceptics get a bit of funding” … or “sceptics provided information on a voluntary basis under a law they need not comply with, when Universities have intentionally broken the law?
   3. And the real question we can ask is: “we voluntarily comply with FOI laws … when will the alarmists do the same … particularly as most are required to comply?”
3. neilcraig says:

   15 December 2011 at 16:17

   Depends if the people writing the story are being impartial. If you go to Scottish Renewables Site Membership Directory you will find a list of payees, around half of whom are public money yet I have found that no part of the Scottish press is willing to even print a letter, let alone use as a news item, the fact that what is nominally a heavily funded industry lobby existing to persuade government to fund their businesses is actually a state funded organisation existing to persuade government and the people to fund that industry”. If they won’t report that they aren’t going to say we are nice just because we prove we are.
4. Scots Renewables says:

   20 December 2011 at 10:26

   SS,
   You are obviously a thoroughly decent bloke and as such I suspect you are never going to have much influence in the ‘sceptic’ camp. Can you really imagine organisations like Heartland adopting this ‘heart on sleeve’ policy?
5. neilcraig says:

   20 December 2011 at 11:58

   Don’t you get tired of being wrong SR
   “Heartland Insyiyute receives funding from approxiamately 1,600 individuals and otganidationd. No single donot gives over 5%”
   A few seconds allowed me to find this on wikipedia and presumably you could have too had you been interested in facts not smears.
   Perhaps you would care to say how much of the £450 million funnelled into the NERC quango, or any of the other government organisations pushing this fraud comes to yoyu. Perhaps you would even be able to name a single ecofascist activist who works for a living rather than getting raxpayer’s money. I have asked this quedtion of Greens before but none of them have been able to credibly name a single person. Perhaps you can do better.
6. Scots Renewables says:

   20 December 2011 at 15:47

   Neil,
   What on earth are you on about? All I said was that I can’t imagine the Hearlland Insitute agreeing publicly to open and eager compliance with FOI as per SS’s suggestion.
   Try reading through your comments before you hit the POST button to see if:
   a) They are relevant
   b) They make any sense
   c) Finally, check grammar and spelling. The post above is a total mess
   And – perhaps you should check your blood pressure while you are at it 🙂
7. neilcraig says:

   20 December 2011 at 16:58

   You seem to have somehow omitted to provide details of who is funding you and by how much.
   Then check grammer, spelling and logic. Your post about the “Hearlland Institute” is a total mess. 🙂
8. Scots Renewables says:

   21 December 2011 at 14:17

   Neil, no-one is funding me.
9. neilcraig says:

   21 December 2011 at 15:39

   Then you will have no objection to adopting the “heart on sleave” approach you advocate for sceptics by proving it.
   In particular you will be eager to show who does employ you and thereby prove to be the first “green” activist in the world not ultimately paid by the government as you now claim
10. Scots Renewables says:

    23 December 2011 at 17:02

    Neil,
    Just how much of a fool of yourself are you going to make over this?
    I run my own web design company, and that is how I make my living, such as it is. The corporate site is clearly linked to from the SR site, had you bothered to look. Our clients run a variety of businesses, few of them particularly ‘green’. You can check the portfolio if you want to see who we work for. You could have easily found this out instead of harrassing me – but then harrassment is how you so-called ‘sceptics’ operate, isn’t it?
11. neilcraig says:

    23 December 2011 at 17:16

    If you are saying that answering things people say is “harrassing” them then I guess you never criticised Mike’s idea in the first place. Must have been the ghost of Xmas past. I assume “few of them particularly green2 means some are and some are governmental.
    Since you couldn’t be bothered checking up on Heartland before libelling them it is somewhat hypocritical to say I should have spent a lot of time checking you. But then such hypocrisy and contempt for facts is how you ecofascists operate, isn’t it?
12. Scots Renewables says:

    23 December 2011 at 18:16

    Neil,
    You seem to live in a complete fantasy world. You can check who our clients are – it is a matter of public record as, like most web design companies, we keep a portfolio of work we have done.
    No, no need to apologise 🙂
    If you still prefer to be convinced that I work for the government then fine. Perhaps you should also know that our headquarters are in an underwater volcano, and that I have shapeshifting properties that I got as a gift from David Icke at the Durban climate conference.
    Happy now?
13. neilcraig says:

    24 December 2011 at 11:27

    I don’t know how much of your income comes from the government nor did I say so (though I would be surprised if it were zero & you have declined to say that it is). On a previous occasion a different web designer involved in a deliberate alarmist fraud, David thorpe, claimed not to be state funded but was clearly getting most of his income from government souurces so you will excuse my scepticism, as it were.
    What I have said is that you do not personally attempt the openness you demand of sceptics and that that is hypocriticval. That now seems undisputed by you.
14. Scots Renewables says:

    24 December 2011 at 13:35

    Neil,
    You seem to be completely incapable of understanding plain English. None of my income comes from the government. Zero, zilch, nada, nil, nought percent. You can in fact check this out if you so desire by looking through our client list.
    You really do seem to live in a fantasy world – but I suppose that is hardly surprising for someone who supports Sccottish UKIP, believes in 9% economic growth and runs a fantasy comic shop. Time to grow up perhaps and check out what is happening in the real world.
    I feel sorry for SS – as his only fan you are not doing his blog – which is the only honest attempt in Scotland to pursue a rational, enquiring sceptic perspective that I am aware of – any good at all.
15. Scots Renewables says:

    28 December 2011 at 22:42

    Scots Renewables is a hobby Neil – something I do because I believe in it. I do not make any money from it. I make my money by creating websites for holiday cottages, for oil service companies, for photographers, for hydraulic engineers, for quad bike salesmen, for churches, for yacht charter companies . . . but not for the government. Of course you could have found this out had you taken my suggestion and had a look at my portfolio.
    But instead you have chosen to call me:
    A ‘lying murdering piece of filth’
    and a
    ‘wholly corrupt, lying, thieving, fascist, parasite’
    and a
    ‘100% a lying thieving pensioner murdering piece of filth’
    Have you ANY idea how deranged you sound? And have you ANY concept of the possible implications of making accusations like this on a public forum? You are even more of a fool than I took you for.

16. Pingback: Scottish Climate Deniers – Neil Craig | Scotland's Renewable Energy Blog

17. Dick Thoenes says:

    29 December 2011 at 16:47

    I want to comment on a little detail:
    You say: “We also need a way to stop people believing we are oil funded groups”.
    This is indeed a preposterous allegation, made by people who do not know anything about the big oil industry. I have at least some knowledge of this industry, and I learned the following:
    Primarily, the big oil industry has never shown any intertest in the climate debate. They believe they will sell their oil anyway.
    Secondly, if a big oil company wants to make a public statement, it has at its disposal sophisticated public relation departments and major advertising agencies. These offer vastly more effective means of publication than does bribing scientists.
    Thirdly, when scientists are hired by an oil company as consultants, they are supposed to help their research people solve scientific problems. And not to voice the opinions of directors.
    Dick Thoenes
    Emeritus professor of chemical engineering, Eindhoven University, Netherlands
18. neilcraig says:

    30 December 2011 at 15:41

    Yeah right – and I await some slight trace of evidence that you don’t. And presumably that the adveertising on the site is produced by you for free.
    If anything you have said is remotely truthful you are easily in a position to prove it.
19. Scots Renewables says:

    31 December 2011 at 11:02

    Neil,
    Sorry, but you simply cannot call someone ‘a lying thieving pensioner murdering piece of filth’ – by doing so you have demonstrated that you are incapable of debating anything in a civilised fashion.
    Your blustering assertion that I am in the pay of the forces of darkness would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Perhaps a doctor could help.
20. neilcraig says:

    31 December 2011 at 13:30

    I have not merely said it I have demonstrated each inevitable factual and logical step on which it is based.
    You have made no serious attempt to introduce any facts, or at any time here or in previous posts, to apologise for or even retract any of your lies, even when they have been proven so to your face.
    There is no dispute that 25,000 pensioners die annually because of fuel poverty. Nor is there any dispute that this poverty could be enormously alleviated, if not ended entirwely, by economic freedom in the power market. A freedom to which you and the entire “renewables” subsidy lobby are absolutely opposed. Therefore there can be no honest dispute that “renewablists”, of which you are merely one, are deliberately killing pensioners for money.
    I therefore call for you to apologise for your dishonest attack on me for using the term. If you are not a wholly corrupt piece of filth you would obviously not wish to continue such offensive lying – you are now in a position to demonstrate whether I have been in any way wrong.
    Since you haver exptressed a critical medical opiniion of me I must ask you to prove your medical credentials or withdraw, acknowledging that it merely reptresents the pinnacle of honesty to which you ever aspire and should thus not be treated as being in any way h0nest.
21. Scots Renewables says:

    31 December 2011 at 15:21

    A ‘wholly corrupt piece of filth’
    Keep it up Neil, it’s all being recorded.
22. Scots Renewables says:

    31 December 2011 at 15:42

    Oh, and Neil, don’t bother posting again on Scots Renewables until you learn to keep a civil tongue in your libellous head. Mike may tolerate this sort of vindictive nonsense, but I am afraid I won’t, whether it is directed at me or anyone else.
23. neilcraig says:

    31 December 2011 at 16:54

    What SR is alluding to here is that he has posted on the “Scottish Renewables” site carrying advertising, which he claims to run pro bono a disgusting attack calling me a “lunatic”. He refuses to produce the medical qualifications which, alone, could prevent this being the witterings of a wholly corrupt, thieving, econazi parasite.
    In the best traditions of econazis he has censored my reply. Let nobdy ever, under any circumstances, suggest that the lack of “open debate” betwenn sceptics and alarmist is due to anything but the deliberate and continuous censorship the latter need to maintain even a threadbare sembl;ance of reality.
    The fact that this government paid liar has come on here for weeks “commenting” on why warming is a genuine but censors the very first post on his own site opposing his own disgusting lies shows that though he and his cronies make use of the free speech liberal minded people extend they are absolutely opposed to it.
    I note he also does not dispute supporting the murder by freezing of 25,000 pensioners annually. I think he owes me a public apology for suggesting that my calling him a pensioner murdering, thieving, fascist parasite was in any way insulting.
24. Scottish Sceptic says:

    2 January 2012 at 10:26

    Neil,
    I’ve just come back from a nice family Xmas and New Year (albeit with a day in bed due to illness), to find this squabble. I’m now struggling to work out if there is any way for me to review the comments from the pair of you to find out which if any I need to delete
25. neilcraig says:

    4 January 2012 at 13:09

    I won’t call for any deletion. Since SR is, on the SR site, calling me a “lunatic” and censoring any suggestion otherwise I do not think he is in a moral position to complain either.
    I’m not sure what answer, apart from general censorship is possible. And while general censorship, of dissent is exercised by virtually all “environmentalist” sites it is obviously incompatible with our liberal values.
    I took pains to show that everything I have said follows inevitably from SR’s assertions (& refusal to produce evidence) but understand that this may have produced more smoke than illumination.
26. steve660 says:

    6 January 2012 at 19:00

    Scots Renewables, I have had the same treatment from Neil Craig. The guy is mental. I may reply to him in the letters pages of newspapers but, after the abusive and mendacious treatment he has given me on his blog (see http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2011/10/dr-steohen-moreton-refuses-to-verify.html), I think the best thing to do with him elsewhere is ignore him. Anything you say he will misrepresent, or ignore. And he will not do his own homework. Repeatedly he has demanded proof that I (like you) am not government-paid. Yet all he has to do is a little Googling and he’ll find some of my scientific publications that state my industrial affiliations. It is trivially easy to verify this, and to verify my PhD (he’s seems to be in denial of that too). But will this retard bother himself? Doubtless, even if he did finally do that, he’d probably come up with some nutty excuse for rejecting the evidence. So Mr Craig, if it makes you happy then here is what is really going on. I am indeed paid by the government – the government of the Zilon empire. I am actually a big green scaly alien operating from an invisible spaceship in orbit around Jupiter. The governments of the world are all in the grip of mind-control by Zilons from the planet Tharg. You see we Zilons want to invade earth, but carbon dioxide is deadly to us. Anything above pre-industrial levels causes us to shrivel up and melt into green goo. So we’ve got to trick the governments into reducing this lethal gas. By using telepathic mind-control we have implanted the idea of global warming. We’ve also corrupted your satellite measurements, put viruses into your computer models, and beamed microwaves at your glaciers to make them melt. And it is working brilliantly. Of course there are a few resilient souls upon whom our mind control does not work. You must be one of them. But we don’t care. You cannot thwart us. Resistance is futile. We will assimilate you into the great Zilon empire, and if you still resist we’ll eat you for dinner. Yum yum.
    PS. We also faked the moon landings (we control NASA), invented HIV, and were the real culprits behind 9/11.
27. neilcraig says:

    9 January 2012 at 13:37

    I suppose i should reply to Steven Moreton’s accusation that I am “mental”.
    He responded to a letter in the Scotsman by me saying that not one scientist, anywhere in the world, not ultimately paid by the state, could be found by claiming to be that scientist. Anyone who reads the link he provided will see that he has since refused to produce any verification for that claim while redefining “not ultimately paid by the state” so that anybody paid by the state at 2nd hand (eg quangos & consultancies) wouldn’t count.
    I think it reasonable to doubt somebody who could produce evidence, if he were telling the truth, but repeatedly refuses and descends to ad homs instead.
    He has also refused to name a single other such scientist with the exception of Professor Lovelock, though he knows that Lovelock is now so far from supporting catastrophism as to have publicly doubted the sanity of catastrophists (apparently including Moreton).
    When asked why, as a “scientist” he believes in catastrophism he replied that it was because of the overwhelming scientific evidence. However he has declined to say what any of this evidence is as he has declined to provide evidence that he fits the claimed qualification. It is undenied that alarmists have previously made the claim to be independent scientists when this was false. He could settle this easily with evidence if it existed.
28. Scottish Sceptic says:

    9 January 2012 at 14:33

    Neilcraig, the thing to remember is that like you and Scots Renewables and Moreton are intelligent people. I may be wrong, but I don’t see any vindictive or selfish motive. All I see is people who have difference experience which has led them to view the evidence of global warming differently.
    So, yes it is frustrating when people who haven’t got your experience or world view, don’t share your viewpoint, but if you are to win your argument you must get people like Scots Renewables to trust your viewpoint and value your judgement, so that they accept what you say.
    And whilst this street-fighting arguments may make you feel better, I don’t think it improves your esteem with anyone… nor for that matter does it make others think better of those others who indulge in these slanging matches.
29. neilcraig says:

    9 January 2012 at 15:00

    This is something we are going to have to agree to disagree on Mike.
    My experience is that the “environmental” activists (not the rank and file let alone the ordinary person in the street who assumes, wrongly but not surprisingly, that if the BBC assert something daily there must be something to it) simply are not subject to logical argument. They have a position, whether religious, a matter of employment or part of their self image, which simply is not subject to evidence. The fact that they do not produce or even debate evidence but assert supports this.
    However the ultimate test which I suggest you or any other reader use is whether they can find any instance in which any alarmist (not a specific dig at SR or Moreton) will admit any error by themselves or any compatriot, even where it is tiny and barely weakens their case. I do not think I know of a single instance but such behaviour suggests fanaticism by those who know how very brittle their front is.
    For example how many alarmists, after years of it being obvious, have ever specifically said that the claim in Gore’s film, that rising sea levels had already caused the evacuation of some south sea islands was a lie?
30. Scottish Sceptic says:

    9 January 2012 at 16:05

    Neilcraig, I don’t think we disagree. I just think you should be aware that the way you argue can be counter productive.
    We all use a form of argument which is “because x knows what they are talking about and because x says y … then y is true”. In other words, we can argue something because we trust someone else to have come up with the right answer.
    The problem with environmentalists is not that they use this argument (we all do) but that they use this kind of argument almost exclusively and almost never argue logically on the facts. I know that is really annoying, but trying to argue with them on the facts/logic can be a bit pointless – especially if it is facts they really can’t understand … like why government shouldn’t employ all these “world class” climate scientists.
    Where SR and moreton have gone wrong is that they trust people who do not warrant their trust. Ideally the way to bring them back to science would be to gain their trust and show that real science (i.e. argument from facts and not say-so) is necessary to judge these kinds of argument. Unfortunately, the position is all the worse because a lot of other people they trust (e.g. the BBC) also tell them that they should trust these people — and shouldn’t judge the issue themselves on the facts but should “take our word for it”.
    This is what the “consensus” is really about. It is an argument that because a lot of people who ought to know, believe X, then X is right. And unfortunately SR and moreton will continue to believe that x is right until they stop believing that the “consensus” is trustworthy.
    We know the truth is that that consensus consists of a lot of “experts” who say “X is true because a lot of people who know what they are talking about say it is true … therefore I (as an expert) will (also) say it is true”.
    It is simply that SR and moreton don’t recognise the circular nature of the global warming argument which is not an argument from authority, but an argument from group-think. They have been deluded by a self-deluding or self-reinforcing circle which assumes that because it bases it argument of the authority of the “group”, that their view must be true
    So, yes, it is a thankless task defeating their arguments. In essence their statements are based on the say say of someone whose statements are based on the say-so …. and going back and back, you will eventually find that the statement is based on the sayso of someone who is already in the chain, so that the line of “authority” becomes a circle and each person in the circle is correct, because they are citing a higher authority, who is citing a higher, until they cite the original person as a higher authority making the whole circle “provably” correct!
    In a perfect world the way to defeat that circle is to get those people to judge themselves … to get them to (apply basic science) and test whether their assertions stand up … i.e. whether they can predict the climate (which they can’t).
31. neilcraig says:

    9 January 2012 at 17:09

    I can’t disagree with any of that.
    The only thing I would add is Mencken’s line that “whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and eager to be led by scaring them with an endless line of hobgoblins – all of them imaginary” which I regard as the best explanation of government pushing this scare.
    I will admit I do get wound up by people who can only counter facts with ad homs and by answering them in kind may give a poor impression.
32. Scottish Sceptic says:

    9 January 2012 at 17:32

    Neil, you do agree with a lot of what I said e.g. I said: “So, yes, it is a thankless task defeating their arguments.” … are you trying to suggest that you get a lot of thanks for defeating their arguments (particularly from them)!!!
    And yes, likewise I get wound up … but this is because they are arguing based on reputation, and when you say: “your argument is wrong” … they assume that means you are making an ad hom attack on the people who told them the argument they use is right.
    Note: … you “attack” the facts, but because they don’t distinguish the facts from the person who said the fact, they see it as a personal attack on the credibility of the “authority” for the fact and not an attack on the fact itself.
    In other words, no matter how carefully, you direct your arguments to the facts, there are people whose mind works in a way that can’t differentiate the fact from the authority which gave them the fact.
    THE TRUTH OF THE FACT == the credibility of the person who told them the “fact”.
    … the result is that you are bound to get Ad Hom response from certain people because they just don’t differentiate tackling the ball (facts) from tackling the person.
33. Scots Renewables says:

    17 January 2012 at 01:04

    Ad Hom response
    – would that include calling another poster a lying pensioner murdering peice of filth then?
34. neilcraig says:

    17 January 2012 at 10:21

    Only if the lying and the commitment to pensioner murdering had not formed part of your comments in the discussion already. In that case it is continuing the debate. I think the description “filth” would be generally seen as appropriate for someone who lies to promote pensioner murder.
    I note, however, that SR has made no attempt to either prove or retract his own assertions about me which, by definition, make them ad homs, also dishonest.
35. Scots Renewables says:

    23 January 2012 at 00:29

    What have I said about you? You are a buffoon, that’s it really. Still, you have done one thing – you’ve pretty much killed this blog. Well done!
36. neilcraig says:

    25 January 2012 at 16:39

    This from somebody who girns about being criticised and whose own alarmist blog depends on censoring any factual discussion. Still you have demonstrated, beyond any reasonable dispute, how completely dependent the alarmists are on lying and censoring

Comments are closed.