How not to win a political campaign

Tact. It’s something that political candidates really ought to possess. And it’s a trait that something Green Party candidate for Hamilton West, Max Coyle, does not possess.

This morning, I posted on Facebook “Snow = global warming… Yup… </sarcasm>”. This was liked by a person with the last name Farrell that I am in no way related to. I got a response from Max Coyle that was nothing less than abusive.

Max Coyle: You really have no idea do you Daniel? Can see your brother likes this too. As it runs in the family please never breed. Epic win Farrell family, humanity loses every time you open you mouth.


Max Coyle: It’s time to fight the people that want to ruin our planet and our children and grandchildrens future for the sake of unsustainable economic growth. You are a blight on this planet


Me: Funny that I’m actually in no way related to Andrew Farrell… That’s a fail, Max.

Oh and Max, that’s exactly what I want to do isn’t it… To ruin the planet for unsustainable economic growth… I could show you exactly how this is not what I want, but that would involve explaining something to a person who is clearly ignorant, and for that matter, arrogant.


Max Coyle: <name removed for privacy> I think we both know Daniel is already ignorant of the world around him and there is no way he will change his mind about a something which a tremendous weight of scientific evidence is behind. Wasting time trying to educate this type of person does noone any favours, it’s like trying to explain atheism to fundamentalist christians.


Max Coyle: Which is why I’ve stopped engaging on any level with Daniel, he really is a supreme waste of space. Nice enough guy but his views are possibly due to a chemical imbalance of the brain, I just hope he’s able to seek professional treatment before he gets too old and stuck in his ways


<Name removed for privacy>: Max, any voter viewing potential candidates for any city electorate may be a little disheartened by ad hominem attacks, regardless of the reasons. <comment clipped to relevant portions>


Max Coyle: I could honestly care less, politics is full of ad hominem attacks. It’s not policy that puts forward bad ideas and bad policy, its people. People like Daniel, Don Brash, John Key etc etc. Populus planto excolo, sic operor censeo

Sure, Max is clearly not going to agree with me that Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change (all three names have been used for the theory…) is a fallacy. I have no issue with that. I understand that. I actually respect that. But that does not mean he should be abusive. That is not how to win an election. I hope this thread is used by political campaigns as an idea of what not to do.


About Daniel Farrell

Check out my website for details about me!

Posted on August 15, 2011, in New Zealand Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.

  1. I don’t understand half of those words written there.

  2. My apologies Daniel. You are correct and this isn’t my finest hour, I resorted to personal attacks when I should have focused on the issues at hand. An argument or a debate isn’t furthered through ad hominem attackes and my comments did little justice to my argument or to myself.

    As well as an apology I’d like to say thankyou also for the opportunity to learn more about myself, and I must say I have come away from this a stronger person and will maintain my normal logic and reference approach to debate/pols conversation.

    All the best.


  3. Your original post evidences zero understanding of what climate change is (and no poppet, global warming is not the same thing). Read a book 🙂

    • Don’t worry. I’ve read articles on the subject, both for and against. I’ve watched documentaries both for and against. I’ve even seen An Inconvenient Truth. I don’t accept the theory of Climate Change simply because it ignores a number of things – the most important being that this is not the first time we have seen the exact trend we’re experiencing now.

      And you can quote the IPCC all you like. They aren’t reliable, and that has been proven beyond doubt by the ‘Climategate’ emails.

  4. You can’t describe global warming as fallacious. Global warming isn’t a logical argument, it is inferred from empirical observation. And if you want to go around quoting “climategate”, why don’t you actually go and read an actual analysis of the affair, and not a bunch of blogs written by non-experts who grossly misconstrue the content of the e-mails. Go ahead, it really isn’t hard to inform yourself. Although, worryingly, you’d rather take the word of a bunch of deluded non-experts than trust in general scientific consensus. As far as the same old “we’ve experienced these trends before” bullshit, this has already been buried. You’re just another ignorant denier, I’m afraid.

    • Hi Steven,

      Thank you for your somewhat offensive comment.

      I assume your “general scientific consensus” is based on the number of scientists that have “contributed” to the IPCC, an organisation that has not published a single document that says anthropogenic climate change is not accurate? Funny that half of those listed scientists will tell you that what they “contributed” to the IPCC hasn’t been published by them and was actually said to be factually inaccurate. That’s a mighty fine looking consensus you’ve got there.

      The fact is, I do not believe the climate is changing. I believe the climate is shifting. It’s a cycle. Most importantly, humans have nothing to do with it.

      I have read journals on the issues of anthropogenic climate change. I’ve read IPCC reports. I’ve watched documentaries. And yes, I have seen some bloggers discuss it. So to your “go ahead, it really isn’t hard to inform yourself” comment – I know. I have informed myself. I’ve taken a stance. And people who don’t agree getting abusive make me less likely to agree, as if they had evidence, they would give that rather than just get abusive. But hey, each to his or her own.

      Oh, as for an actual analysis of the affair, how about an IPCC panel member (unfortunately I can’t remember who it was) who said something along the lines of ‘when people have no science behind them, they start with underhanded tactics. That’s what this is’. I think he forgot he was supposed to be talking against the people who hacked the emails. Sure, it was wrong, but it proved cover ups. Oh, and I didn’t read a bunch of blogs on climategate. I read the emails. Big difference.

      Thanks for visiting my blog. As much as I don’t like people being abusive, I do appreciate people giving their point of view. That’s what I made this blog for. So thanks, you’ve done me a favour.

  5. You do realise that the IPCC – even if they *were* covering up data (which is contested mainly by experts – no-nothing non-experts continue to misunderstand the impact of the e-mails) – are not the sole scientific body dealing with climate change right? So know, I don’t fucking mean IPCC when I say scientific consensus you dumb shit. You are the last person who should be writing a political blog. You are uninformed and under read. If you have read the e-mails (and I highly doubt you’ve done anything more than browse through a few non scientific blogs were extracts were posted) then it is unlikely you understood their significance.

  6. My language is probably too strong, but, honestly, after spending ten years of my life studying climate science I am sick on non-expert skeptics propagating hysterical anti-scientific rubbish. And this whole climate-gate issue is such a good example. All you ignorant, dangerous goons concentrate typically on one e-mail. This one:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    Does this one single e-mail bring down the edifice of global scientific consensus? Even if this *did* speak to a conspiracy in the CRU, only a fool would think so. As it happens, this e-mail is willfully misinterpreted. John Cook was quick to point it out mere weeks after the leak. He wrote, far more eloquently than I can:

    “What do the suggestive “tricks” and “hiding the decline” mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The “trick” is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

    The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

    In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science – proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels. We’re observing an enhanced greenhouse effect. The planet is still accumulating heat. What are the consequences of our climate’s energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating. Greenland ice loss is accelerating. Arctic ice loss is accelerating. Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating. Antarctic ice loss is accelerating.”

    Hopefully this will bury your nonsense. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about and are pushing some perverted agenda beyond the bounds of reason.

  7. Moreover, care to select one of the e-mails you claim (implausibly) to have read which refutes the evidence that C02 levels have reached levels unprecedented in the last 800,000 years?

    • The climategate email I generally refer to (and unfortunately I can’t link to it, because the site I used to read the emails was deleted after the owner started receiving death threats) had the IPCC asking for a study of tree rings to look at what happened over the past 200-300 years. It was found that about 200 years ago, there was a similar climate event as to what is happening now. It was then asked by the IPCC if there was any way these statistics could be amended to show a “more preferable” outcome.

      I must say, comments like “I don’t fucking mean IPCC when I say scientific consensus you dumb shit”, “All you ignorant, dangerous goons” and for the matter the death threats to people who published the climategate emails really does strengthen the argument against anthropogenic climate change. Just saying. That’s the only reason your comments are staying. Any more abusive comments, and they’ll be deleted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: