MannGram®: the smokescreen of confusion on
Climate Debate Daily
> Editors: Douglas Campbell and
> Douglas Campbell is currently
completing a Ph.D in philosophy at the University of Arizona while
teaching philosophy at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.
He has degrees in computer science and biology, and has worked as a
wildlife ranger with endangered species. His areas of
philosophical expertise include logic and the philosophy of science.
He is impressed by the breadth and depth of the scientific evidence
supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and thinks that
to the extent that the science remains uncertain the Precautionary
Principle still justifies even relatively costly mitigation measures.
Like Prof. Dutton, he is, however, open to being led by logic and good
evidence to whatever the truth may be. His optimistic hope is
that Climate Debate Daily will help focus minds on the very best
arguments from both sides of the debate and help put the poor
arguments (of which there are many!) to rest.
> Denis Dutton is an Associate
Professor of Philosophy at the University of Canterbury in New
Zealand. He founded and edits the Johns Hopkins University Press
journal, Philosophy and Literature, and the well-known website, Arts &
Letters Daily. At the University of Canterbury he has recently
introduced a new course on the distinction between science and
pseudoscience. Dr. Dutton is skeptical about the degree to which
human activity has contributed to the general warming trend that began
in the 1880s. He adds, however: "Working at the university where
Karl Popper taught in the 1930s and 40s, I am more than a little aware
of the way that good scientific hypotheses must always be open to
falsification. The best way for science and public policy to proceed
is to keep assessing evidence pro and con for anthropogenic global
warming. That is the idea behind Climate Debate Daily." Denis
Dutton's personal website is here.
The scientist who pointed out this Climate Debate Daily to me
done nothing to reduce my confusion on the matter.
answer to that is: you were not meant to become less confused.
The smokescreen of overwhelming amounts of very confusing
pseudo-science has now overwhelmed even the most diligent inquirer.
Confusion suits the purposes of the coal, oil, gas etc industries as
well as your aligning with the deniers.
case the inquirer is a mature, accomplished scientist, M.Sc and then
successful in computer programming (the fate of many promising
scientists of my generation).
group of retirees ('U3A') on ecology recently viewed a very polished
DVD 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' produced by a PR agency I'd not
heard of (safely assumed to be funded by large coal &/or large oil
&/or large nookuluh, and other industries who desire confusion
about climate change). I remarked to that group of a dozen how
sorry I am for those not trained in science who are struggling to make
sense of the IPCC and its critics.
enterprise CDD® is stated to be controlled thusly:
Editors: Douglas Campbell and
I know nothing of D Campbell except his modest declaration
(above) which aligns with what I'd say about myself.
But I would like Dutton's record in editing to be better
known, and so I circulate the following note as I have repeatedly for
years without Dennis' responding (I have inferred that he concedes its
Some recent MannGrams have emphasised the crucial role of
experts in democracy: especially on arcane technical matters, science
should provide disinterested advice. The world needs, more
acutely than ever, reliable scientific description, predictions, and
interpretations of not only climate change but also nuclear power,
LNG, and of course gene-tampering. But the past few decades have
degraded scientific advice to the status of a commodity.
Millions flow thru PR agencies which most citizens have never heard
of, hiring mercenary experts and setting up pseudo-grassroots fronts
for propaganda. Some people qualified in science emit very
sophisticated deceit in this corrupt scene. In such a context it
matters crucially that editors be honest. I again challenge
editor Dutton to desist from his 'honest editor' pose, and I would
like to hear more on how Campbell's finely-stated ethical posture is
Dr D Dutton, NZSCIOP
c/ University of Canterbury
Dear Dennis Dutton,
You'll recall the main facts leading to my quitting your
organisation. You published Vincent Gray's ignorant and
source-free polemic against science-based conservationism; to which I
a brief response whose small list of sources was then purged
publication. Since one of my main criticisms of Gray was his
refer to any respectable scientific sources (he can't), you will at
understand my resentment at being made to appear as if I similarly
(having mentioned sources - e.g
Ehrlich & Ehrlich - which have been edited out,
without my knowledge).
What I want to know therefore is who framed me in that way.
obvious possibilities are yourself and entrepreneuse Viki Hyde
editor' at the time]; but, for all I know, someone less obvious may
done it. Is it important who at the
time bore the title 'editor' [viz
In any case I would of course be interested to
learn your own view
of this matter.
I think it best to
let you know that I am contemplating various
uses of this case-history in my continuing work on reconciling science
Christianity. Scientism - the ludicrous
pretence to believe that the
scientific method is the sole means of knowledge -
much influence in the group which you publicly represent; it is in
opinion no mere coincidence that such science as I observed within
group was poor, Brockie being only one extreme case.
The recent TV
screening of 'South Pacific', my favourite musical,
rivetted me with the plantation-owner's ultimate question, which the
couldn't answer: "what are you
for ?". Apart from its crucial
application to the monstrous decadence from
which you are a refugee [Dutton
is from Calif], I believe it can usefully be applied by each to
Therefore I am happy to
commend to you William Temple's notion of
'dialectical realism'. He disavows intention to found a school
philosophical thought, but I think he deserved to achieve that, and
[Dutton gave no written reply but only phoned me in response,
and evaded the central q. I assume he was covering up for
Hyde, who soon afterward deep-sixed by dishonest methods an article of
mine on DNA structures. These are just a couple of glimpses of
the vindictiveness & dishonesty of militant atheists &
feminazis such as have now become v influential in governing our
has sought a role of active promotor of gene-tampering, at least for a
period in the NZ media.
man can not be trusted as an objective editor of the climate-change
L. R. B. Mann M.Sc Ph.D
22a Ardern Ave., Stanmore Bay 0932, New Zealand
(9) 424 0808