SourceWatch gives the impression it’s an honest organisation keeping an eye on individuals funded by industry involved in public relations and that “Unlike some other wikis, SourceWatch has a policy of strict referencing, and is overseen by a paid editor”.
It begins its entry about me, Jennifer Marohasy, by stating that:
“Dr Jennifer Marohasy is the Director of the Environment Unit at right-wing Australian think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. She is a climate change skeptic, denying that climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.”
No, I’m just not sure that greenhouse gas emissions are the principal drivers of the current warming.
Sourcewatch goes on to use the following quotes from me to support the above proposition:
“DR JENNIFER MAROHASY: It’s ambiguous. It’s not clear that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide levels. But let’s move beyond that argument and let’s start talking about how we can adapt to what will be a different climate in the future.” …
“DR JENNIFER MAROHASY: I actually think that it’s good if we can get beyond this debate of whether increase in carbon dioxide levels are driving more extreme climate events. I think that we need to move beyond that and accept and recognise that whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change.”
From the last quote it seem pretty clear that I believe there will be climate change. Yet they’ve categorized me as a climate change skeptic?
Interestingly they can’t get the link to my blog correct, this is the URL they use http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/Jennifer .
The link to my much quoted monograph titled ‘Myth & The Murray’ is also wrong. Why would they use the following URL
http://www.ipa.org.au/Speechesandsubmssns/jmwarrenspch.html ?
I’ve given a lot of talks over my career including to environment groups, but interesting they have chosen to highlight the only one ever sponsored by the United States Government and that was in about 1997 which is nearly 10 years ago.
I guess they are trying to give the impression that I’m a right wing propagandist?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Accusing others of being a right wing propagandist usually means that the accuser is a left wing propagandist, and any comments made by others that does not fit the left wing view is, by default, right wing.
You just have to look at how they treat green groups (with kit gloves) to see where they are coming from. Its basicly a hard left anti-conservative site masquerading as a “public interest” site.
These organisations start off with the premise “they are all lying, we are the only ones that tell the truth” which indicates that they are founded on untruths.
From Wiki
“The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is an American-based media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber. It publishes PR Watch, a quarterly newsletter edited by Laura A. Miller. Stauber and CMD research director Sheldon Rampton have written five books describing what they call the murky world of public relations. Another CMD project is the SourceWatch website (formerly called Disinfopedia), a Wiki, which CMD describes as “a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests.”
CMD has stated that it is not affiliated with a political party, but that it does not pretend to lack opinions or a point of view. It states its opposition to “the barriers and distortions of the modern information environment that stem from government- or corporate-dominated, hierarchical media.” In contrast, it favors “grassroots citizen activism that promotes public health, economic justice, ecological sustainability and human rights.”
The website ActivistCash.com, operated by industry lobby group the Center for Consumer Freedom, describes the Center for Media & Democracy, the organisation behind SourceWatch, as “a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization… it is essentially a two-person operation.”[1]. It is funded by organisations, described by ActivistCash as ‘leftwing’, such as the Homeland Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Carolyn Foundation, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology.
That’s just playing semantic games – it’s obvious that the debate is simply about CO2 causing global warming, for which there is more than ample evidence. If you don’t believe that proposition then one is clearly a skeptic to the proposition that greenhouse are changing the world’s climate. And given the tone of the blog’s climate posts what else would one conclude?
Told you before Jen – join Greenpeace or WWF.
Don’t change your views just your public affiliations and see what happens. At the very least , maybe some will actually address your arguments rather than your resume.
That IPA thing is a real rag to the bull isn’t it?
Well done Luke. You have used “proposition” and “skeptic” as well as any religious zelot that I have heard.
Well done Luke. You have used “semantic” ,proposition” and “skeptic” as well as any religious zealot that I have heard.
SourceWatch operates on the basis that anyone who disagrees with their perspective must either have something wrong with them, or they are paid to hold such views. As Jennifer infers – there is a need for SourceWatch-Watch!
No Muckadilla – you don’t understand simple pure logic when you see it. Has nothing to do with your religion of denialism.
Perhaps Sourcewatch is unnerving as it simply states the truth.
Sourcewatch deserves a passing note, but doesn’t merit “watching.” All it does is dedicate a website almost exclusively to the notion that ad hominem argumentation is not only valid, but virtuous as well. Of course, it is neither.
The Sourcewatch can also be easily recognized as merely an extension of the “who is independent” game, which NGOs play endlessly. They pride themselves on taking no money from sources they deem nefarious and often, in their efforts to distance themselves from anything which might “compromise” their position, they even make use of scientists who have little or no training in the areas they pretend to discuss with authority.
In this way, they present themselves as meeting the standards of government officials. Not surprising, as non-governmental organizations wish to assume the mantle of “speaking for the public.” They attack journalists and commentators for not meeting their standards, not on the basis of some moral imperative, but rather, so that they may proclaim that the purity of their motives exceeds everyone else’s. Which of course is utter charlatanry.
Sourcewatch has nothing to do with any sort of virtue, but is rather, a malicious vice writ large.
Schiller.
You guys have either ignorantly or purposefully (not sure which is worse) entirely missed the point of Sourcewatch. Sourcewatch is a WIKI – that means that anyone can edit it. What is up on Sourcewatch merely represents the sum total of what different contributors to the site have been interested to research and write about. It does not have one agenda or perspective any more than Wikipedia or any other wiki does.
It is total bunkum to write that Sourewatch “operates on the basis that anyone who disagrees with their perspective must either have something wrong with them, or they are paid to hold such views”, since Sourcewatch does not have a “perspective. It simply exists to bring information about public organisations and people to the attention of the greater public.
Can I finally address the point that “All it (Sourcewatch) does is dedicate a website almost exclusively to the notion that ad hominem argumentation is not only valid, but virtuous as well.”
When Sourcewatch exposes corruption or hidden agendas or conflicts of interest, it is not engaging in ad hominem argumentation. Take, for example, the case of the IPA receiving $40,000 of funding from Murray River irrigators, at the exact time that Dr Morohasy is persuading a government committee to overturn recomendations to increase the volume of water released into the Murray River (noted here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs#The_IPA_and_the_Murray_River ). Is it not in the public interest for this clear conflict of interest to be made public? If parliamentarians (or anyone else) is trying to objectively assess the arguments put forward by the IPA, shouldn’t they have a right to know if it has a huge conflict of interest in making particular arguments?
Missed the point? – Saucewatch is a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, if their function is “investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda” then when are they going to investigate the Greenpeace fake “ramming” incident?
Greenpeace get the greenlight whilst Patrick Moore is dismembered , I would guess Saucewatch is a home for “cyber activists”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenpeace#Resources
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore
Mr./Ms. “Sourcewatch Contributor” is quite instructively confused.
He or she says that “corruption or hidden agendas or conflicts of interest… is not engaging in ad hominem argumentation.” And this is supposed to be a *defense* of Sourcewatch?
Claims of corruption, hidden agendas and conflicts of interest are the heart and soul of ad hominem argumentation! This is common knowledge, but somehow “Sourcewatch Contributor” has managed to overlook this.
Such confusion explains Sourcewatch Contributor’s ridiculous rhetorical question: “If parliamentarians (or anyone else) is trying to objectively assess the arguments put forward by the IPA, shouldn’t they have a right to know if it has a huge conflict of interest in making particular arguments?”
The answer to the rhetorical question is an unequivocal “No.” Why? because if parliamentarians are trying to objectively assess the arguments put before them, they should try to objectively assess the arguments put before them!
Schiller
Over the last couple of days SourceWatch have fixed some of the links, and added a link to the biography at my website.
thanks.
I’ve seen SourceWatch before, and never been impressed, either.
My favourite sustainable use group, IWMC World Conservation Trust is described as an “Anti-environmental front group”.
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=IWMC_World_Conservation_Trust
Are there any “strict references” for this front group characterization? Not that I can see.
And what does anti-environmental mean? Any group that supports the principle of sustainable use?
Well, at least they didn’t say that IWMC supports shark-finning, as some anti-use NGO supporters like to claim (of course, the truth is out there: http://www.iwmc.org/sharks/000729-3.htm).
How about IWMC head, Eugene Lapointe:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eug%E8ne_Lapointe
The full story is of course available, and makes for very interesting reading:
http://www.conservingwildlife.org/eugene_resume.html
If I had any respect for SourceWatch I’d have done some editing myself by now. Perhaps their staff may drop by and note this.
I tried punching in the names of some of my favourite anti-whaling figures, but struggled to find any.
I’ll read Wikipedia before I read SourceWatch.
You have to wonder why the global warming cult spends so much time trying to win converts and attacking doubters. In any case, I am confident that they do not care about the Earth or our lives. Do you think that government research grants and control over our lives have something to do with firing their zeal?
Kyoto Score Cards Fudged in Europe
Knowing that some leftists will go berserk over the thought that anything to do with Europe is bad and anything to do with the Kyoto Protocol is bad, how will…
I’d never read Sourcewatch until today; one does not have to read much to realise it’s just another Mean, Green Anti-West Scream Machine.
Not even worth bookmarking.
Actually there are two cults – the denialist cult spends lots of time collecting bogus arguments to tie up the AGW guys and stop them finding out more confirming information. Anything to slow things down and stop necessary change.
Who is stopping you guys from finding information?
It should be freely available; just because someone does not want to read SW doesnt mean they are in denial, maybe they have better things to do.
Hi to u over there, my names are EDO PATRICK PAUL, from Nigeria but leaves in Cote d’ivoire, i want to know what you people are up to, you can write me back with my mail address patrick_sport@yahoo.com or patrickpaul@mail.com, till i hear from you bye.
Woody, I’m confident you’re right wing idiot after years of reading your shallow drivel. If Jennifer has doubts let her take them up with the crew at realclimate.org insetad of applying for membership in the “Kookaburra Consortium.” (Patent Pending) I’m a biologist too and have no doubt. Of course the natural heat of OZ in general may be misleading down there. The facts are not.
I AM JOHN MONSCO A STOCK BROKER AND A MONEY LENDER,I GIVE OUT ALL KIND OF LOAN TO ANY INTERESTED PERSON ABOVE THE AGE OF 30 WITH LOW INTEREST RATE.IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN GETTING THE LOAN CONTACT ME VIA E-MAIL AT (johnmonsco1@yahoo.com)
Jesus, I’ve never experienced the dunce and think-tank slash and burn of the reasearch and stupidity of this site called SOURCEWATCH. It’s impossible for the editroial staff to do anything but corrupt reality in any sort of attempt to act with due dilligence in a manner befitting journalism or any other kind of fact-based writing. It’s destructive. It’s intended to be distructive. It is, above all, a fractured piece of madness and the product of an illusional frame up designed to hide something. I think the agenda is whatever it wants it to be. Freak show web site.
Jesus, I’ve never experienced the dunce and think-tank slash and burn of the reasearch and stupidity of this site called SOURCEWATCH. It’s impossible for the editroial staff to do anything but corrupt reality in any sort of attempt to act with due dilligence in a manner befitting journalism or any other kind of fact-based writing. It’s destructive. It’s intended to be distructive. It is, above all, a fractured piece of madness and the product of an illusional frame up designed to hide something. I think the agenda is whatever it wants it to be. Freak show web site.
Jesus, I’ve never experienced the dunce and think-tank slash and burn of the reasearch and stupidity of this site called SOURCEWATCH. It’s impossible for the editroial staff to do anything but corrupt reality in any sort of attempt to act with due dilligence in a manner befitting journalism or any other kind of fact-based writing. It’s destructive. It’s intended to be distructive. It is, above all, a fractured piece of madness and the product of an illusional frame up designed to hide something. I think the agenda is whatever it wants it to be. Freak show web site.
adware free intrusion spyware update