Australian Politics Forum

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Pew
Reply #30 - May 3^rd, 2010 at 10:38am

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:00pm:

Quote:

I don't see what the big deal is whether I post original articles or a link to where I put them up before.

PJ, not everyone is a fan of repeating the same debate over and over again.

I have covered new ground - your the one repeating yourself. Ie your same old name calling and ad homs against Walter Starck, strawman arguments, nit picking over definitions etc.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53182
At my desk.

Re: Pew
Reply #31 - May 16^th, 2010 at 6:41pm

pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 4:34pm:

If you want direct evidence there is the admission from Pew that they use their grants to scientists and others to promote their agenda.

pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

Quote:

And what is that agenda? Revealing the truth, or misleading the public? I am not aware of many charitable organisations that fund fundamental research, without demanding to own the results. If their agenda is anything but revealing the truth, they are going about it the wrong way.

Establishing marine park no take zones wherever they don't already exist.

PJ, what exactly did they admit to? And is that agenda something you projected onto them?

pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

Trying to claim some sort of scientific authority on this is why they fund scientists.

But if the science backs marine parks, doesn't that mean they have scientific authority? I think it is great that they are funding scientific research into such an important area.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Pew
Reply #32 - May 16^th, 2010 at 7:13pm

]pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 4:34pm:

If you want direct evidence there is the admission from Pew that they use their grants to scientists and others to promote their agenda.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800-pound gorilla of ocean issues. Created with funding from the Sun Oil Company and sitting on a $4.1 billion war chest, it is an organization that refuses to let reality get in the way of their agenda. In public documents their self-mandated mission is to “save” the oceans. They claim that the primary purpose (of the Trust) ‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’ This validates that Pew grant recipients are carrying out the ideas and motivations of Pew. The impact of such tactics is changing the direction of fisheries policy. True management and conservation is gradually being replaced by a call to stop all fishing through the use of paid-for science funneled to the media through Pew-financed conduits, and touted by Pew-funded environmental organizations. Much of their agenda is anti-fishing, even on well managed, rebuilt or rebuilding fish stocks, to the point of being little more than a cleverly disguised attack on the public’s access to the ocean

pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

Quote:

And what is that agenda? Revealing the truth, or misleading the public? I am not aware of many charitable organisations that fund fundamental research, without demanding to own the results. If their agenda is anything but revealing the truth, they are going about it the wrong way.

Establishing marine park no take zones wherever they don't already exist.

PJ, what exactly did they admit to? And is that agenda something you projected onto them?

Se above.

pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

Trying to claim some sort of scientific authority on this is why they fund scientists.

But if the science backs marine parks, doesn't that mean they have scientific authority? I think it is great that they are funding scientific research into such an important area. [/quote]

It's a claim to scientific authority. The science is tainted as I have been saying.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 17^th, 2010 at 3:10pm by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53182 At my desk.	Re: Pew Reply #33 - May 16^th, 2010 at 7:18pm Quote: Look in the Pew thread. This is the Pew thread PJ. I have no idea what you are talking about, which is why I am asking you. Quote: The science is tainted as I have been saying. I know you have said it PJ. That doesn't make it so, does it?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Pew
Reply #34 - May 16^th, 2010 at 7:22pm

[] Quote:

Look in the Pew thread.

This is the Pew thread PJ. I have no idea what you are talking about, which is why I am asking you.

Yes I just noticed that. Look at the previous post for the relevant quote.

Quote:

The science is tainted as I have been saying.

I know you have said it PJ. That doesn't make it so, does it? [/quote]

I have put up several articles on Pew's activities - you have not said one word to dispute them.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53182 At my desk.	Re: Pew Reply #35 - May 17^th, 2010 at 7:54pm Quote: The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800-pound gorilla of ocean issues. Did Pew publish this? I thought you said they admitted to something.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1404 Gender:	Re: Pew Reply #36 - May 17^th, 2010 at 7:57pm freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 7:54pm: Quote: The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800-pound gorilla of ocean issues. Did Pew publish this? I thought you said they admitted to something. Duh FD - the part in inverted commas is from Pew.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53182
At my desk.

Re: Pew
Reply #37 - May 17^th, 2010 at 8:06pm

Got it.

Quote:

‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’

Now that we have taken what they actually said away from the bluster, can you point out which part of this 'admission' is sinister, or is an admission to something you think is sinsister? I assume you will concede that funding scientific research comes under the 'scientific' bit. It seems to me more like stating the bleeding obvious rather than admitting to anything.

Interestingly, I googled that extract, and this forum came out on top. I couldn't see anything that looked like a Pew site in the top 20.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Pew
Reply #38 - May 17^th, 2010 at 8:48pm

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 8:06pm:

Got it.

Quote:

‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’

Now that we have taken what they actually said away from the bluster, can you point out which part of this 'admission' is sinister, or is an admission to something you think is sinsister? I assume you will concede that funding scientific research comes under the 'scientific' bit. It seems to me more like stating the bleeding obvious rather than admitting to anything.

Interestingly, I googled that extract, and this forum came out on top. I couldn't see anything that looked like a Pew site in the top 20.

You really must have a comprehension problem. To paraphrase it says that they award grants to carry out the organisations purposes. Elsewhere they state their purpose is to 'save' the oceans through the promotion of marne parks.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 18^th, 2010 at 9:08am by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53182 At my desk.	Re: Pew Reply #39 - May 18^th, 2010 at 7:37pm Quote: Elsewhere they state their purpose is to 'save' the oceans through the promotion of marne parks. Would you mind quoting them? Also, do you have any reason to believe that their position on marine parks is leading their scientific enquiries rather than following them?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Pew
Reply #40 - May 19^th, 2010 at 9:28am

[] Quote:

Elsewhere they state their purpose is to 'save' the oceans through the promotion of marne parks.

Would you mind quoting them?

Their literature is full of it. I have already put up quotes and information about their campaigns as well eg to make the whole coral sea a marine park.

Also, do you have any reason to believe that their position on marine parks is leading their scientific enquiries rather than following them?
[/quote]

The articles I put up explain it. Also the reefgate affair is a good example.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53182
At my desk.

Re: Pew
Reply #41 - May 19^th, 2010 at 6:32pm

Quote:

Their literature is full of it.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to back up what you said, should it? Also, the single quote you have provided has not been directly linked back to Pew either. All of your evidence to back up that claim so far comes from comically extreme anti-pew web postings, not a single piece comes from Pew itself.
Quote:

The articles I put up explain it.

I'm sure they do, but do you have any reason to believe their conspiracy theories reflect reality, other than the fact that they said it does?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Pew
Reply #42 - May 19^th, 2010 at 6:41pm

[] Quote:

Their literature is full of it.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to back up what you said, should it? Also, the single quote you have provided has not been directly linked back to Pew either. All of your evidence to back up that claim so far comes from comically extreme anti-pew web postings, not a single piece comes from Pew itself.
Quote:

I did when you asked last time, eg regarding their campaign for the Coral Sea.

The articles I put up explain it.

I'm sure they do, but do you have any reason to believe their conspiracy theories reflect reality, other than the fact that they said it does? [/quote]

It's called circumstantial evidence FD, and they do offer evidence, contrary to your suggestion. Aside from the articles here reefgate (ie the point of my original post), is a good example of Pew influence.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53182 At my desk.	Re: Pew Reply #43 - May 19^th, 2010 at 6:51pm Quote: It's called circumstantial evidence FD You have only circumstantial evidence that they 'admitted' to something?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1404 Gender:	Re: Pew Reply #44 - May 19^th, 2010 at 7:08pm freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2010 at 6:51pm: Quote: It's called circumstantial evidence FD You have only circumstantial evidence that they 'admitted' to something? I have a reference to a published quote. What are you saying - I would have witness the Pew official typing it on the keyboard?
Back to top	IP Logged