OPINION PIECE

Why is Vinny Eastwood such 

a twit?

Usually, my venom is directed at the sophisticated climate change denial of the mainstream that, one suspects, is more interested in their own agenda in trying to maintain that ponzi scheme that is called "the economy".

But today, with more bemusement than anger (which is what I usually experience),  I want to address the lunatics.

Prolific New Zealander, You Tuber, Vinny Eastwood has been finding his voice on Facebook telling people what they should and shouldn't believe.

A lot of climate change deniers ask "do you BELIEVE in climate change.This reveals a lot about them because they place their BELIEFS higher than objective evidence.

A bit of background. 

I placed the following on Facebook which with a modicum of understanding speaks for itself.

Yesterday I woke to the following from Mr Eastwood (with my response)

I'm not much into Facebook "discussions" these days and I wasn't even going to mention it for the fact that Mr. Eastwood came back for a second time.

He didn't really need to comment at all (he's not at all equipped to do so really) but he did, so I will respond a bit more fully here.

Can you find any evidence here?  I can't

If I had to take things to their illogical conclusion I would think that Vinny is implicating Mother Nature in a plot to "destroy national sovereignty, carbon tax all human activity and move humans into tightly-controlled and surveilled (note the spelling) cities".

It really does appear that preposterous to me.

I happen to BELIEVE that much of what he says above is by-and-large true to some extent but that is my BELIEF.

Usually I come to such conclusions through some insight or other based often on primary observations but they remain my own theories which I do share.

However, without labouring the point I usually make the distinction between theory (or hypothesis) and what I know to be the case.

I have never ever been convinced by listening to people talk about this (least of all, Vinny Eastwood).

Some things are new and I will never stop playing around with ideas.

However, some things I am very convinced about to the extent I KNOW they are true.  I have been looking at climate change for 30 years and have known about the greenhouse effect since the age of 11 (thanks to a study of astronomy).

So when I hear someone try to convince me that objective processes in Nature are part of some "Agenda 21" plot I have to conclude the person is either phenomenally ignorant, a lunatic or perhaps, a troll.

So after all this, after the above (and on the same day) he comes up with the following I have to laugh.

THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES

This brings me to the nature of evidence.

There is direct evidence, which comes from documents (say, of the type released by Wikileaks and then there is circumstantial evidence which is often sufficient to INFER something.

There is nothing wrong with amassing circumstantial evidence - a sufficient amount can lead one to reach correct conclusions, especially when taken alongside direct evidence.


It has been my modus operandi for 8 years - why I cover extreme weather events.

However, the problem comes - and I observe this time after time (after time),with those one might label as a conspiracy theorist - when one takes one bit of circumstantial evidence, often linked with initial assumptions and uses it  along with other bits of circumstantial evidence to form, not a theory, but a conclusions from which they cannot be shaken.

When confronted with direct evidence like the above from the Arctic the ultimate response is to then claim because they KNOW their beliefs are true that the data is faked and all scientists are involved in the "conspiracy".

There is plenty of stuff on the internet that will tell you 'up' is 'down', 'black is white' - the ice is increasing when it is decreasing, or "sea levels are not rising,they are sinking" (the politician Richard Prebble said this in the media a few years ago.

If I wanted to engage in innuendo I could say Vinny Eastwood is in good company with Richard Prebble; he does seem to be in good company with the fossil fuel companies.

At the age of 63 and having had a university education I reckon that I was taught how to think and equally important, how to deal with evidence.

To my great chagrin people younger than me do not demonstrate much ability to handle evidence. Still worse, most of the people I come into contact with communicate in ways that I have to reread at least once to know what they are talking about. Some can scarcely string two words together.

I don't really mind any of this. It only starts to bother me when they try to foist their ill-formed ideas on me - part of the reason I dislike Facebook so much.

Some might call this arrogance. I call it a confidence in my own abilities honed over several years with great work.

I have always had some affection for Vinny Eastwood but have never had enough time in the day to listen to any of his interviews through to the end.

I covered just about everything he had to say after the March 15 shootings in Christchurch and appreciated his contributions - especially interviewing witnesses down in Christchurch even if the questions were leading ones.

However, its saddens me to say that the great revelations came from an Australian, Max Igan who had the skills to do an analysis frame-by-frame of the video.

This did not come from a New Zealander but from an Australian. Australia (perhaps more because of its population and not because of its superior education system) has thrown up great analysts and social critics such as John Pilger and Julian Assange (and I could go on with other examples).

New Zealand has produced a tiny handful of excellent investigative journalists - but then I have never seen Vinny show any interest in them. 

Does he think his material is 'superior' to theirs?

VINNY AND TOMMY ROBINSON

And just today Vinny has come up with another whopper.

An objective look at the politics of Tommy Robinson would confirm his proximity to Israel - that comes from his experiences growing up in Luton.

I hate Israel a lot more than Mr. Eastwood but I can distinguish between politics and revelations of Muslim grooming gangs and radicalisations inside the mosques - in other words, what is broadly true and what is not.

The question for me is how "controlled opposition" within a state that cannot dare utter a single word against the zionist state can end up in Belmarsh prison.

The term, "controlled opposition" will never pass my lips.

What, I wonder,  will Mr. Eastwood say in the event Tommy Robinson is beaten to death by Muslim terrorists?

My suspicion is that this (or any other part of reality) will NOT get Vinny Eastwood to modifiy his firmly (and I mean, firmly) - held beliefs in any way.

For me one sign of a truth teller is the ability to modify (or even change) one's assumptions in the face of new evidence.

****

Finally, a bit of free advertising from Vinny.  Here is what he thinks is wrong with the world