Doomstead Diner Menu => Doom Psychology & Philosophy => Topic started by: RE on August 26, 2017, 10:21:02 PM

Title: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: RE on August 26, 2017, 10:21:02 PM
Nicole told me about this shit a couple of years ago, but she wasn't prepared at the time to go public with it.  Now she has.  It was published on The Wrong Kind of Green (http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2017/08/26/statement/) website.  Thanks to RandyC for making me aware of it.

Edit: I incorrectly attributed this Statement to Nicole Foss due to its parallel to a narrative Nicole told me 2-3 years ago.  It is correctly attributed to Cory Morningstar.

RE

STATEMENT

Wrong Kind of Green Aug 26, 2017 Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism

August 26, 2017

To all-

It has come to our attention that a respected leader of our small online enclave has betrayed the trust many people have instilled in him over the past years.  We are stunned at these revelations like everyone else.  It was with much internal debate and emotional pain that we decided as a group that we had to release the information to the community.  Although this form of information is not our usual forte as we are collectively concerned about overriding issues, such as leaving some form of a natural world above all else, it was something so stunningly vile that we had no other choice but to present it to the community as our conscience would not allow us to conceal this from the public.

Since this decision, which is something we thoroughly debated due to its seriousness, there is much online discussion regarding to what degree his transgressions can be described as terrible and even if they should be in the public due to the personal nature of the correspondence.  From this perspective, this person and his supporters have pointed to the fact that the behavior between himself and the woman in question was of a consensual, private nature, and should be of no concern to the wider community.  We believe this argument falls short for three critical reasons which should be considered both separately and collectively.

The first reason is one of ethics, which is separate from legality.  The word ethics is defined as “a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.”  Most professional organizations have codes of ethics, which participants must adhere to in order to remain in good standing.  In regards to its specific ethical standards, the American Psychological Association states “your psychologist shouldn’t also be your friend, client, or sex partner.  That’s because psychologists are supposed to avoid relationships that could impair their professional performance or harm their clients. One type of relationship that’s never acceptable is a sexual relationship with a current client.“

This person has taken on several roles, which in combination provide the framework for producing potentially serious ethical concerns.  As a recognized authority in the field of climate science, this person’s words contain the weight of authority for many.  His carefully worded prognostications of a coming end of human existence on the planet, though backed by his scientific understanding,  nonetheless have the ability to produce a state of anxiety, uncertainty, and despair in those who accept his perspective.  This person acknowledges this on his website, stating that “Because the topics of his presentations sometimes induce despair, Guy became a certified grief-recovery specialist in January 2014.”

The combination of his pursuits, as a climate scientist predicting the end of life as we know it, and grief counselor, puts him in the unique role of both producing or exacerbating the effect of anxiety or despair in an individual, as well as creating the context through which that despair is then addressed.  His audience, of which we have been a part, consists of individuals often marginalized by our larger society that ignores the very real warnings of catastrophic  climate change.  The views shared by many in our Near Term Human Extinction (NTHE) group have produced not simply a sense of despair about the future, but also a sense of isolation from our immediate communities and families.  Solace is then sought out within the NTHE community, under the banner of this person’s scientific findings.

While in many ways natural responses warranted by our current situation, this combination of despair, confusion, and isolation, none the less set up the potential for the exploitation of those who acutely feel the desperation and disorientation of abrupt climate change, and have nowhere else to turn for answers.

And this is the reason for the need for ethics and ethical boundaries.  This person is in a position of authority with direct influence over the mental, emotional, and in some cases physical and monetary lives, of those who exist in a state of vulnerability.  This is a state which he has helped to facilitate and of which he profits from in his personal life.  To then use that position, as this person has done, to engage in sexualized relations with women by way of administering a self-serving “healing” to individuals who are going such traumatic personal experiences, is a violation of ethical boundaries.  From a purely ethical perspective within a narrowly focused context of a professor/student and grief therapist/client context, the exact content of these relations, which will justifiably elicit revulsion in many by themselves, is not the primary concern.  The mere existence of these relations under such power dynamics, whether consensual or not, is at best ethically compromised, simply because of the potential  for abuse that exists, even if no actual abuse can be conclusively identified.  As the revelations of women who have come forward and expressed their pain with regard to these relationships continues to grow, this strongly indicates that emotional abuse and the abuse of power were at play and their claims should be taken with utmost seriousness. At the most basic level, it is because these abuses could take place that professional boundaries and codes of ethics are established and why we should reject this person‘s behavior.

In that vein, the truth of the matter is that whatever grey area there may potentially be is no longer up for debate due to his repeated and lengthy record of attempting and succeeding in taking advantage of women in a vulnerable position emotionally due to the disheartening mental and social effects of personally accepting the ongoing Sixth Great Extinction (of which humanity will be one of its victims, as well as its singular cause).  As one of the admittedly unfiltered and honest voices concerning this present set of circumstances with few people having the sphere of influence that he has in our small community,  the unethical manner in which he used this trust for nefarious sexual ends repeatedly has left us no other recourse but to do everything in our power to stop him from continuing the same behavior.

This then leads to the second critical point.  While the argument has been made that in regard to his relations with one particular woman, the content is irrelevant because of its consensual nature, this defense rings hollow.  To use an analogy: while living in a free society one may be legally permitted to hold racist beliefs and freely associate with other racists, a member of the NAACP would  nonetheless rightfully oppose its leader if they were later discovered to be a member of the KKK.  Such an association would clearly violate the spirit and mission of an organization promoting racial justice, and in the duplicity of core beliefs in the leadership, it would  also indicate a threat to the structural integrity of the organization and potentially its members.  It would not matter whether the current leader had joined the KKK after being first approached by a klansman, or if the leader started a chapter on his own.  The compromise would be clear.

Similarly, the content of his interactions with one woman in question, no matter how they came about, indicated the willingness of this person to engage in, perhaps initiate, rape fantasies  and other degrading and sexually objectifying dialogues that are not congruous with the core values of a significant number of members of the Near Term Human Extinction Support Group and its associated community.  This incongruity is borne out in the fact that he has spoken out specifically against patriarchy on his regular online radio program and in innumerous public forums and presentations, but has engaged in fantasies of rape and sexual enslavement, which represent the most extreme form of patriarchy, regardless of how that interaction began.   Therefore, the problems surrounding the content of his interactions are twofold.  They are contained in both the degrading, misogynist verbiage itself and the fact that such interactions represent a betrayal of trust relating to the public image of a respect for life and an opposition to patriarchy that he has cultivated in the public eye to his personal benefit.

The destruction of the Earth, the underlying concern of the NTHE support group, is the direct result of human and environmental exploitation, a core element of which is the domination of women where females are treated as property to be used  like much of the natural world, mere objects for male gratification.  Thus the move from more egalitarian, hunter gatherer societies into stratified agricultural and industrial societies, which culminated in today’s planet devouring global civilization which this person critiques, entailed the objectification and commodification of women.  To participate in such objectification and fantasies of female subjugation with a potential member of the NTHE group no less, goes beyond hypocrisy.  It signifies that in regard to what this person believes and values, he cannot be trusted.  And given the context, as suggested in the above analogy, this duplicity threatens both group integrity and potentially the safety of its members.

Perhaps some would say that the way in which the information was obtained makes us no better and even worse than the perpetrator, as there are many online accusations of this being the case.  However, we didn’t go out seeking this information, even if we are greatly appreciative of it since it allows us the opportunity to stop any future manipulations by someone in a leadership position.  It was brought to us and we made the difficult decision to use it for the greater good of stopping any further occurrences – our decision superseding any disparaging things said about us individually or collectively.

Ultimately, the fact of the matter is that none of the individuals who became privy to this information have an axe to grind with this person. Actually, this is quite the contrary.  We are all people who had a great amount of respect and admiration of him as a scholar and a person.  It wasn’t until recently that those who possessed such a tremendous amount of respect for this man started questioning his motives outside of the irrefutable science and his singular desire to provide it to the public.  Sadly, this recent incident dispelled any doubts in our minds regarding much of his endeavors.

We are a small community of activists.  Most of what we know to be true in this world in regards to the state of affairs of the planet are things that are not accepted by the mainstream world, even though they are playing out in real time and disaffecting humanity at this very instant and with growing intensity.  As it is difficult to find any sources of solidarity, be it local or globally, once this disparate group of human beings find comrades or leaders (of which there are even less), we tend to cling on to them in great desperation as they are truly few and far between.

As this is the case, the people who come to us and try to find a community of some sort to explain to them what is going on or just commiserate about the ongoing travails of this global society are the picture of vulnerability during their greatest hour of need.  Hence, it is unethical, even predatory, for anyone to take advantage of these people while they are most defenseless.  As some people are trying to construe this as just a single, solitary case,  the fact of the matter is that this has been an ongoing pattern for awhile now and has reached a point where someone must step in and stem the tide of abuse this man is committing on this tiny yet venerable group.

As such, it begs the question how long can people righteously withhold  what they know to be the truth when it comes to this man’s interaction with the members of such a small group, an already victimized sect who find very little acceptance in general society?  Can we, as supposedly moral people, just sit back idly and allow this type of behavior to continue unabated since it is the path of least resistance to stay silent?  As the response from this tight knit community has ranged from outrage to acceptance, the outcome of this revelation is of no real importance as biases abound as to the acceptance of this information.  Since that is the case, the only thing of barometric significance is apprising the people of the truth to keep them from harm, which was our singular reason for the release of this information.

Although we are cognizant that all of us have personal transgressions and no one is perfect, the predatory nature of this individual makes him a threat to both those who may be accepting of his advances and, most importantly, those who are not.  If the interaction is one of consent amongst equals, it is not the business of us as individuals or as a group to intercede at all.  But, when there is a blatant disregard for the welfare of the people  in an attempt to serve the lascivious desires of one man, then that is something that must be addressed by those who are in power to do so by any means necessary.

This brings us to the third and final critical point.  Not only was there a sordid psycho-sexual aspect of what took place that was against everything this man professed to be of a personal nature as a leader of a social movement, he also betrayed the confidence and trust of another intellectual leader and comrade in the movement, where, based on his documented language, it is a legitimate concern as to whether or not he would have been an actual physical threat to her if he had the opportunity.  With this third and final critical piece, his actions go beyond purely professional ethical violations and public misrepresentations of core values which demonstrate a willingness to degrade and objectify women.  His discussion moves into the realm of creating a physical environment that justifiably feels unsafe to core members.  As previously mentioned, there are other cases of women who have begun to voice their own troubling experiences, which at this time we cannot provide further details.

Therefore, even though we have all had an immense amount of respect for this man over the years, the recent events show he isn’t worthy of being in a position of influence and power over others, as he has abused it in the past, is abusing it presently and will assuredly continue this behavior in the future if no one attempts to at least stop him.

Although we are understanding that people will still hold their opinions about the veracity of the evidence against this man and come away absolving him of all guilt in this series of events, the primary thing we hope to accomplish is to warn those who are in the community about the ulterior motives of this man.  Once people are provided all the evidence, it is up to them to make a personal decision if they wish to continue their relationship with this person, be it personal and/or professional.  We aren’t here to tell anyone what to do in any aspect, as freedom of thought and choice is something we believe in and respect.  However, we would be remiss if we didn’t provide people the total knowledge they need to make informed decisions.

As we know that many people will consider our revelation as being divisive and a planned attack for some fantastical reason that has no basis in reality, we can only say we received this information through no attempt on our part and will receive no reward for releasing it.  Once we became aware of it though, there was no other recourse but to bring it to the public sphere, as the ongoing pattern of behavior was spiraling out of control. There will be those who will cast aspersions against our character and accuse us of somehow profiting in some way from this event, even though this is anything but the case.  Still, there will be many people who will consider us turncoats, paid informants, subversives and every other form of accusation as to our motives.  Yet, we will almost assuredly lose more favor and receive heightened scorn through providing this information than any other outcome.  No matter what blowback we receive though, it is worth it to us to receive a mountain of negative response rather than live with the unconscionable act of staying silent in the face of knowing malfeasance.

We welcome all queries about the veracity of the information since the specific evidence is part of the public domain and not under our supervision.  We have nothing to hide and will vociferously defend our decisions in this matter since to be silent in this regard is criminal, if not legally, then definitely morally.

We are greatly appreciative of the support from our online community in bringing this to the fore.

Thank you.

Michael  Sliwa, Host of the radio show Nature Bats Last from August 2014 to May 2017

Derrick Jensen, Deep Green Resistance

Lierre Keith, Deep Green Resistance

Cory Morningstar, Wrong Kind of Green

Forrest Palmer, Wrong Kind of Green

Luke Orsborne, Wrong Kind of Green

 

+++

Psychiatrist, researcher, teacher, and author Judith Herman:

“Authoritarian, secretive, sometimes grandiose, and even paranoid, the perpetrator is nevertheless exquisitely sensitive to the realities of power and to social  norms. Only rarely does he get into difficulties with the law; rather, he seeks out situations where his tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired. His demeanor provides an excellent camouflage, for few people believe that extraordinary crimes can be committed by men of such conventional appearance.  The perpetrator’s first goal appears to be the enslavement of his victim, and he accomplishes this goal by exercising despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life. But simple compliance rarely satisfies him; he appears to have a psychological need to justify his crimes, and for this he needs the victim’s affirmation. Thus he relentlessly demands from his victim professions of respect, gratitude, or even love. His ultimate goal appears to be the creation of a willing victim. Hostages, political prisoners, battered women, and slaves have all remarked upon the captor’s curious psychological dependence upon his victim. George Orwell gives voice to the totalitarian mind in the novel 1984: “We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul.”

 The desire for total control over another person is the common denominator of all forms of tyranny. Totalitarian governments demand confession and political conversion of their victims. Slaveholders demand gratitude of their slaves. Religious cults demand ritualized sacrifices as a sign of submission to the divine will of the leader. Perpetrators of domestic battery demand that their victims prove complete obedience and loyalty by sacrificing all other relationships. Sex offenders demand that their victims find sexual fulfillment in submission. Total control over another person is the power dynamic at the heart of pornography. The erotic appeal of this fantasy to millions of terrifyingly normal men fosters an immense industry in which women and children are abused, not in fantasy but in reality.”


FINAL-STATEMENT-AUGUST-26-2017-final-revision (http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/FINAL-STATEMENT-AUGUST-26-2017-final-revision.pdf)
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Surly1 on August 27, 2017, 06:18:51 AM
Nicole told me about this shit a couple of years ago, but she wasn't prepared at the time to go public with it.  Now she has.  It was published on The Wrong Kind of Green (http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2017/08/26/statement/) website.  Thanks to RandyC for making me aware of it.

RE

I saw some discussion of this on The Panic room, Gail Zawacki's FB page. Was wondering WTF was going on. If this is accurate, a lot of things make more sense as they fall into place.

ICK.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Eddie on August 27, 2017, 06:55:32 AM
Was not aware of the "psycho-sexual" angle. WTF is Nicole talking about? Sounds a bit far-fetched, imho.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Randy C on August 27, 2017, 07:20:27 AM
There is more information on Facebook.  I was not aware of the nature of the problem until a week ago.  It first surfaced when Robin Westenra of Seemorerocks blog made comments that a woman had accused Guy of taking advantage of her.  Guy claims it was among consenting adults, but the problem is one of ethics, taking advantage of vulnerable people as a grief councilor.

Also, take a look at the people who added their names to the bottom of the statement, Mike Sliwa lived near Guy in New Mexico and co-hosted his radio show.  The two were friends!  I doubt very much that this is just a personal attack because Cory Morningstar and Derrick Jensen co-signed it as well as three other people.  I hardly think they would do that and risk their reputation and position in the collapse community without good reason.

Take a look at Guy's more recent posts on NBL.  He is taking a break from his public presence due to "professional trolls" and the "deep-state."

https://guymcpherson.com/2017/08/im-mostly-done/#more-14549

Something is clearly wrong here. 

Finally, Nicole and Guy had a falling out several years ago because Guy was rather rude to her, as well as others analysts in the collapse community because he didn't think they were taking a strong enough stand on the coming collapse.  He has been banned from The Automatic Earth for some time now, it is not even acceptable to speak his name on that web site.

If you want access to the Facebook feed, send Robin Westerna a friends request so you can read what people are saying.  Friend Nicole Foss as well as she posted it shortly after Wrong Kind of Green posted it.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Randy C on August 27, 2017, 07:29:49 AM
From Facebook, Robin Westenra's reaction to the letter from Mike Sliwa.

Robin Westenra
9 hrs ·

Todays reflections.

Yesterday I went to the funeral of a beloved cousin who was, amongst other things was bit of a character especially when it came to his relations with the ladies. What impressed me was the acceptance of his occasional waywardness amongst those who knew him.

Then I woke up this morning to a very public statement about my friend, Guy McPherson,more- or-less comparing him with a man taking advantage of a helpless young woman.

There are several things desperately wrong (and that is putting things mildly) with this.

The first is acting as judge, jury and executioner without knowing all the facts.

I am someone with somewhat old-fashioned values and do not take kindly to this publc shaming over something that is very private?

Who can honestly, hand-over-heart tell me they are perfect?

Imagine how people would have reacted in the not-so-distant past if, in the midst of a dsiagreement I took my love letters and without consultation went and photocopied them and mailed them out to all my friends.

You’d all be quite correctly outraged.

Yet, this is exactly what happened here from what I can see. I have seen enough of the correspondance to be able to say that the young lady in question was far from innocent. In fact the correspondance shows that this person was strongly into BDSM and rape fantasies and actually initiated the correspondence.

What induced her to turn and release the equivalent of photocopied private correspondence I have no idea but I can hazard some guesses.

I am well aware of sexism that is becoming MORE, not LESS rampant,pushed largely by a media-driven agenda.

It is many years since I watched a Hollywood movie but I am told that in films women are being relegated once again to being sex objects.

All the while every form of ‘identity politics’ is being pushed so that every form of sexual perversion is put on a pedestal while ‘red-blooded heterosexuals’ (women as well as men) are being castigated in the present toxic, febrile environment, especially, it seems, in America.

There is a climate of blame.

Somebody, ALWAYS, has to be to blame. Whatever happened to acceptance of human nature.

If there was a crime in this case it was of being naive and too trusting of people one doesn’t know personally.

Nobody was truly taken advantage of. Nobody was raped. It was all consensual in an environment that should have remained strictly private.

But I can bet that every word Guy McPherson writes, publically or privately, every word on Messenger will be being read in realtime by the Masters of the Universe.

In case you ask, NO, I will not share the documents that have been shared with me in confidence. That is a strictly private affair that has nothing to do with me or the people that have been loud in their condemnation.

I am angry, very upset and almost through with Facebook, and with the toxicity of the people that inhabit it. It encourages people to rush off to post their opinions even when these are at odds with the evidence.

I am contemplating giving up on Facebook and managing without it. I am not far off wanting to exit from all this shit.

If I disappear off Facebook I may well have decided to do just that.

Want to disagree? That’s fine but I doubt you will remain a Facebook “friend” longer than 5 minutes.

End of sermon.

Kevin Hester, Lisa Stewart, Pauline Panagiotou Schneider,
LikeShow more reactions
CommentShare
30 Robin Westenra, Pauline Panagiotou Schneider and 28 others
1 share
19 Comments
Comments
Kevin Hester
Kevin Hester Remember Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistle-blower who was caught in a Mossad 'Honeytrap' , kidnapped and imprisoned for blowing the whistle on Israhell's nuclear weapons program?
Guy like us all has made mistakes but I suspect this was a well plann...See More
Free Mordechai Vanunu
Public Figure
East Jerusalem
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
11
· 9 hrs · Edited
Manage
Lisa Stewart replied · 2 Replies · 1 hr
Kevin Hester
Kevin Hester http://nymag.com/.../climate-change-earth-too-hot-for... (http://nymag.com/.../climate-change-earth-too-hot-for...)
When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You…
nymag.com
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
3
· 9 hrs
Manage
Maree Conaglen
Maree Conaglen Trial by social media is so wrong. Guy's personal life is his own business.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
11
· 9 hrs
Manage
Deejay Rebel
Deejay Rebel Well said Robin!
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
7
· 9 hrs
Manage
Gargi Gogoi
Gargi Gogoi I suppose this is how it is even though all was consensual and one's private life is no one else's business . But despite the Social Media trial now , it is still Guy's private life and people in near future will have to find something else to talk about.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
7
· 9 hrs
Manage
Elli Xydias
Elli Xydias Sounds fishy as I mentioned on Mike Sliwa's page.

I read there also that Sliwa was using Guy's internet? At the Mud Hut? ...See More
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
7
· 8 hrs
Manage
Elli Xydias
Elli Xydias Maybe this is whats happening with the Serena cult followers?
Image may contain: 2 people, text
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
3
· 8 hrs
Manage
Heike Ngan
Heike Ngan This sounds like the nasty work of a gas lighter...a very common tactic among those caught or questioned for lying. A dreadful tactic, and points squarely at the moral bankruptcy of the perpetrator. Everything we do can be twisted by a determined narci...See More
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
8
· 8 hrs · Edited
Manage
Pauline Panagiotou Schneider replied · 2 Replies · 38 mins
Robin Westenra
Robin Westenra "Mike Sliwa is right now using Guy's internet at the Mud Hut.

Talk about hypocrisy. And ethics."
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
7
· 8 hrs
Manage
Torstein Viddal
Torstein Viddal Don't give up on face, Robin! This, too, will pass. And anyway, we need you! :)
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
9
· 7 hrs
Manage
Robin Westenra
Robin Westenra I am contemplating moving away from work and the blog - only Facebook
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
4
· 7 hrs
Manage
Gargi Gogoi replied · 1 Reply
Torstein Viddal
Torstein Viddal Sounds reasonable. Blog is a lot of work and sort of yesterday's platform.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
2
· 7 hrs
Manage
Gina Webb
Gina Webb Beautifully put Robin, I have been more than disappointed by the personal attacks, disheartened even. Seems to be a mad witch hunt. I really appreciate your level headed perspective Robin, I would miss your posts if you weren't about.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
7
· 6 hrs
Manage
Peter Choyce
Peter Choyce There is something all too unholy sanctamonius about the hangin jury. I hope they don't find my diary cuz they'll read it and publish it and it will be me that has to pay for the sins of man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvK1n6ArYMc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvK1n6ArYMc)
Jim & Jean - Crucifixion
Lyrics: Phil Ochs
youtube.com
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
4
· 6 hrs
Manage
Diane Steele
Diane Steele Hateful people are everywhere. Either ignore, or delete and block. I enjoy reading your posts as well as Guy's. Don't let the haters bring you down.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
2
· 3 hrs
Manage
Pauline Panagiotou Schneider replied · 1 Reply
Liz Brennan
Liz Brennan Being in the US, at first when I read the original post slamming Guy, I was appalled that someone would do something like that to another person. Then I thought more about it and was angry that it happened and like you, Robin, thought there was more to...See More
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
3
· 2 hrs · Edited
Manage
Pauline Panagiotou Schneider
Pauline Panagiotou Schneider Thank you for using your brain and heart, Robin.

This is such an obvious smear campaign. I heard that Bobcat Cole is determined to bring Guy down. ...See More
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
3
· 40 mins
Manage
Pauline Panagiotou Schneider
Pauline Panagiotou Schneider The putz with lame threats.
Image may contain: 1 person, beard
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 40 mins
Manage
Pauline Panagiotou Schneider replied · 3 Replies · 22 mins
Karolina O'Donoghue
Karolina O'Donoghue Thanks for doing this, Robin. Several FB groups with admin I had thought trustworthy seem to be still allowing crazy speculation and gossip. I havent done much, in an attempt not to feed the trolls.

At the moment I am just distressed that certain influential members of the radical climate movement appear not to be able to see the wider stakes here.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply ·
2
· 26 mins
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 07:43:25 AM
WTF?  Seriously?  I read the entire article.  They never even said what supposedly happened.  It was all just insinuated.  Rape!  That is a strong word to use for consensual sex amongst adults. 

It sounds like complete bullshit to me.  Sounds like two people had some kinky sex, then somebody got their feelings hurt and went public to smear Guy's name.  It's nobodies fucking business is what it is, unless there was actually a rape.  Looks to me like this is a publicity stunt for Nicole. 

The world is burning and we're supposed to get all in arms about some consensual sex? 

I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's rape, than it's a police matter. 

This is one good reason why I refer to facebook as "swampbook" and avoid it like the plague. 
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 09:04:20 AM
I don't know what occured in this incident with this woman, I only know about the behavior patterns that Nicole observed over a couple of years and told me about in confidence.  I promised not to reveal any of this stuff.

What we are talking about here is not physical rape. Nicole said most of the time no physical sex is involved at all, although sometimes it may be.  What Guy apparently gets his jollies from is to take emotionally weak women and make them psychologically dependent on him.  He uses his whole NTHE shpiel as a lever to accomplish this task.  This is not "illegal" in any code of law you could find, so I doubt there is any "crime" here you could prosecute.  It is however if true quite unethical.

During the time Nicole observed the behaviors, Guy was married and together with his wife, I don't know if he still is.  So his wife was either unaware of it at the time or if aware she tolerated the behaviors.  Nicole herself is quite the ardent Feminist, so you have to take her opinions of what was going on with a grain of salt as well here.  Feminists tend to see male predation on females everywhere (particularly among WHITE males), so you never get a truly unbiased opinion from them.  For me though, Nicole's opinions hold more weight than what Guy says and does, and this critique rings true to his personality that I have observed.

It will be interesting to see what the Blowback is from this inside the Collapse Community, which as we all know is quite small overall.  I imagine Guy will take a Low Profile position for a while, although I don't think he will disappear completely.  It will be interesting also to see how this affects his speaking tours if he continues to do them.  One would expect Gail Zawacki to show up and try to disrupt them, she is not shy about pulling that shit.

Like Sands through the Hourglass, these are the Days of Our Collapse Lives.  ::)

(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Collapse-Days-of-our-Lives.png)

RE
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: jdwheeler42 on August 27, 2017, 09:09:38 AM
I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's rape, than it's a police matter. 
For a Prophet of Doom, consensual sex is purely a private matter.

If Guy wants to call himself a Grief Counselor, though, he needs to follow their Code of Ethics.  If their code of ethics states that he can't have sexual relations with a current client, then he should have told her that he couldn't be her counselor effectively because he was sexually attracted to her.  Then he would have been free to pursue a relationship with her, if she consented.
Title: Nicole Foss is a Fossil Fuel Shill attacking a messenger of truth
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2017, 09:12:55 AM
Nicole Foss is a deceitful propagandist for the fossil fuel industry.  Her claim to being an "energy expert" was BULLSHIT from the moment she SAID, "I know, but there is money to be made.", when I pointed out to her in 2012 that Fracking is an obscenity.

She IGNORED the FACT that there were, and still are, MASSIVE costs to the biosphere in general, and people in particular, that make the Fracking ERoEI happy numbers a total fossil fuel funded fabrication (that Foss would happily repeat over and over (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) ).

ANYONE (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030817202100.gif) that has ANY respect for the Foss fossil fuel SHILL is worthy of pity, if not outright disdain.

I don't agree with much of what Guy says, but it is crystal clear to anyone with a modicum of objectivity and critical thinking skills that FOSS (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)
 is out to undermine
(i.e. attack the messenger - fallacious debating technique) Guy's message simply because he has cited irrefutable evidence that the fossil fuel industry (and other polluters) are RESPONSIBLE for the biosphere degradation and the Sixth Mass Extinction Event we are now experiencing.

As usual, Nicole Foss is SHILLING for the fossil fuel industry, nothing more.

Guy is RIGHT that BUSINESS AS USUAL IS KILLING US.

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-110217171320.png)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270716175152.png)

Title: Nicole Foss BS meter reading
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2017, 09:26:56 AM
I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's rape, than it's a police matter. 
For a Prophet of Doom, consensual sex is purely a private matter.

If Guy wants to call himself a Grief Counselor, though, he needs to follow their Code of Ethics.  If their code of ethics states that he can't have sexual relations with a current client, then he should have told her that he couldn't be her counselor effectively because he was sexually attracted to her.  Then he would have been free to pursue a relationship with her, if she consented.

With all due respect, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Foss is engaging in an attack the messenger operation. If you cannot see that, I suggest you look deeper. She would like nothing more than for people to engage in arguing abut  the ethics of this, that or the other, just as long as the issue of biosphere destruction from the polluting business as usual status quo is not brought up. You are playing right into the Foss Fossil Fuel Shill's con.

It probably won't be long before Gail Tverberg weighs in with some added tear jerking distraction to defend Foss.  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)

When Foss talks, I always check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).


(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817121829.png)


 
Title: Nicole Foss is credibility challenged
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2017, 09:40:03 AM
I don't know what occured in this incident with this woman, I only know about the behavior patterns that Nicole observed over a couple of years and told me about in confidence.  I promised not to reveal any of this stuff.

What we are talking about here is not physical rape. Nicole said most of the time no physical sex is involved at all, although sometimes it may be.  What Guy apparently gets his jollies from is to take emotionally weak women and make them psychologically dependent on him.  He uses his whole NTHE shpiel as a lever to accomplish this task.  This is not "illegal" in any code of law you could find, so I doubt there is any "crime" here you could prosecute.  It is however if true quite unethical.

During the time Nicole observed the behaviors, Guy was married and together with his wife, I don't know if he still is.  So his wife was either unaware of it at the time or if aware she tolerated the behaviors.  Nicole herself is quite the ardent Feminist, so you have to take her opinions of what was going on with a grain of salt as well here.  Feminists tend to see male predation on females everywhere (particularly among WHITE males), so you never get a truly unbiased opinion from them.  For me though, Nicole's opinions hold more weight than what Guy says and does, and this critique rings true to his personality that I have observed.

It will be interesting to see what the Blowback is from this inside the Collapse Community, which as we all know is quite small overall.  I imagine Guy will take a Low Profile position for a while, although I don't think he will disappear completely.  It will be interesting also to see how this affects his speaking tours if he continues to do them.  One would expect Gail Zawacki to show up and try to disrupt them, she is not shy about pulling that shit.

Like Sands through the Hourglass, these are the Days of Our Collapse Lives.  ::)

(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Collapse-Days-of-our-Lives.png)

RE

I always have liked you, RE. But the fact that you have given Foss the time of day and even praised her knowledge of "energy" over the years shows a serious flaw of judgement on your part. It appears that you have been in friendly communication with her over the years. That too, is a blunder on your part.

But it's your life. Just don't be surprised when 99% of EVERYTHING that you thought made sense about energy ERoEI from Foss is proven to be TOTAL BULLSHIT on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

I am your friend, RE. But I have not forgotten how you consistently sided with that SHILL Foss over energy issues when I severely criticized her. Yes, you defended my right to write my thoughts (that she and her side kick Ilargi attacked, undermined and refused to answer), but you never actually stated she's WRONG about energy and I'm RIGHT.

You probably still feel that way. You will probably never admit it, but you will learn I was right about the solution to our energy problems from the start.

Argue away. I am not in the mood to argue. Like I said, it's your life. If you want to befriend evil, lying people like Foss, that's your problem, not mine.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss BS meter reading
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 09:41:33 AM
When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

On the BS Meter, Nicole usually puts it at about 80%.  Guy pegs it.

RE
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Eddie on August 27, 2017, 09:52:53 AM
Counselors of all kinds are notorious for ethics violations. Seen that movie about the life of Carl Jung and his patient who had to be spanked to get off?

This reeks of the usual Social Justice Warrior/Uber-feminist BS. Another reason I refuse to do FB at all.
 
Conformity 2.0.....

Day of our Collapse Lives indeed! Oh, the drama.

I don't like Guy McPherson much for reasons I've stated many times. But this is some sad, silly shit.

True? Dunno, but completely irrelevant to my collapse life.
Title: Nicole Foss is the champion BS meter pegger
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2017, 09:53:17 AM
When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

On the BS Meter, Nicole usually puts it at about 80%.  Guy pegs it.

RE

The difference is not that significant, but it is interesting that you do not enter into the "20%" from Foss that you think is "acceptable". Guy does not bullshit about ERoEI happpy talk for fracking or any other fossil fuel. Guy cites scientific studies on extinction rates. Foss plays math games and cites fossil fuel industry stats like they were handed down to Moses on the Mountain while consitently ignoring pollution costs. Guy consistently points out the pollution costs.

Yeah, Guy is a super doomer and into some hyperbole about how soon it all comes crashing down. So? What part of the peer reviewed scientific studies he cites are not truthful or accurate? At least he doesn't pretend fossil fuels are God's gift to humanity. To claim, as Foss has done, that we will all die without fossil fuels is really pegging the BS meter!

Guy just states we will die BECAUSE we pollute, which is scientifically irrefutable (See: Do not industrially shit where you eat).


(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tKBsTGeWsKc/VznRUcnfo1I/AAAAAAAAyok/paDRwKq7pxQvOB0MOBc7Y7FOeBpjxwj6wCLcB/s1600/fracked%2Bgas%2Bis%2Ba%2Bbridge%2Bto%2Bnowhere.PNG)

Tell me WHO iis the REAL BULLSHITTER.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220815161550.png)
Title: Re: Nicole Foss BS meter reading
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 10:05:12 AM
When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

On the BS Meter, Nicole usually puts it at about 80%.  Guy pegs it.

RE

Yep, this whole incident is bullshit.  It's a publicity stunt for Foss IMO.  Guy may be a sexual deviant.  And?  Who gives a fuck.  I certainly don't.  I agree that if he's a "grief counselor" then he shouldn't be fucking his clients.  However, WTF is a grief counselor?  Did he go to college and get a doctorate in psychiatry?  Probably he went and sang kumbyeya with some hippies and got a certificate in grief counseling?  Good grief...really?  Maybe I should go be a grief counselor for money? 

I've got no interest in wasting my time dealing with people who likely just need a good fuck.  Hell, sounds like Guy probably did that woman a favor.  Maybe part of his grief counseling is to give the gift of orgasm?  Who knows?  I, for one, don't give a shit.  Guy Mcstinkshin isn't selling me anything that I'm going to buy.  Nor is Foss.  This whole incident is just high school drama in the collapse-o-sphere. 

Consenting adults can fuck each other, yes?  If they want to put clothes pins on their balls and pretend that they are being raped, and they all consent, then what's the difference if their foreplay was talking about NTHE and how hard it is to deal with?  Sounds like NTHE, Nihilism, and S&M should be great bedfellows. 

"Oh yes, fuck me Guy, fuck me in the ass while I scream and squirm and yell rap, we're all going to die next year anyways...oh yeah Guy, fuck me with your little prick." 

"Fuck you guy, you hurt my feelings with your little prick...I'm telling the stupid little collapse-o-sphere that you're a rapping asshole." 

I'm not buyin' any of it. 
Title: Re: Nicole Foss is the champion BS meter pegger
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 10:28:18 AM
Tell me WHO iis the REAL BULLSHITTER.

In measuring Bullshit, IMHO Dr. McStinksion wins hands down.  There simply is no way every last Homo Sap will be dead by 2026.  Utter bullshit, he is out of his mind or using it to manipulate females who are depressed about the situation..

RE
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2017, 10:30:10 AM
When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

On the BS Meter, Nicole usually puts it at about 80%.  Guy pegs it.

RE

Yep, this whole incident is bullshit.  It's a publicity stunt for Foss IMO.  Guy may be a sexual deviant.  And?  Who gives a fuck.  I certainly don't.  I agree that if he's a "grief counselor" then he shouldn't be fucking his clients.  However, WTF is a grief counselor?  Did he go to college and get a doctorate in psychiatry?  Probably he went and sang kumbyeya with some hippies and got a certificate in grief counseling?  Good grief...really?  Maybe I should go be a grief counselor for money? 

I've got no interest in wasting my time dealing with people who likely just need a good fuck.  Hell, sounds like Guy probably did that woman a favor.  Maybe part of his grief counseling is to give the gift of orgasm?  Who knows?  I, for one, don't give a shit.  Guy Mcstinkshin isn't selling me anything that I'm going to buy.  Nor is Foss.  This whole incident is just high school drama in the collapse-o-sphere. 

Consenting adults can fuck each other, yes?  If they want to put clothes pins on their balls and pretend that they are being raped, and they all consent, then what's the difference if their foreplay was talking about NTHE and how hard it is to deal with?  Sounds like NTHE, Nihilism, and S&M should be great bedfellows. 

"Oh yes, fuck me Guy, fuck me in the ass while I scream and squirm and yell rap, we're all going to die next year anyways...oh yeah Guy, fuck me with your little prick." 

"Fuck you guy, you hurt my feelings with your little prick...I'm telling the stupid little collapse-o-sphere that you're a rapping asshole." 

I'm not buyin' any of it. 

Yep. But look deeper, Lucid. Go back to Randy C's post above and NOTICE when the "problem" began beween Foss and Guy (her stance on POLLUTING ENERGY SOURCES).

Then go back to the post further up with the psychology lesson from some learned poobah about the despicable behavior of people who wish to manipulate others. Oh it reads so serious and caring, doesn't it?

But they left out the FACT that the Automatic Earth website that Foss and Ilargi run BANS everybody that doesn't sing their tune. WHO is out to manipulite WHO, eh? WHO is out to propagandize and USE the vulnerable for the sake of polluting energy? WHO is trying to MAKE MONEY off of people who believe fossi lfuel happy talk? WHO is INTOLERANT of criticism and/or opposing views to the point of banning them?

Foss is GUILTY as sin of being a world class manipulator. The possible argument on her behalf that she manipulates greedy people instead of the "vulnerable" is a rather strange defense, don'tcha think?

So here we have a mean spirited bit of gossip dressed up in psychobabble while the incredibly mean spirited greed based push by foss and friends to defend the polluting status quo is totally ignored as if that has no bearing on the lives and health of ALL life forms on  this planet.


(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)

Title: Re: Nicole Foss BS meter reading
Post by: Surly1 on August 27, 2017, 10:33:19 AM
I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's rape, than it's a police matter. 
For a Prophet of Doom, consensual sex is purely a private matter.

If Guy wants to call himself a Grief Counselor, though, he needs to follow their Code of Ethics.  If their code of ethics states that he can't have sexual relations with a current client, then he should have told her that he couldn't be her counselor effectively because he was sexually attracted to her.  Then he would have been free to pursue a relationship with her, if she consented.

With all due respect, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

AG, with the greatest affection and respect, it IS the matter at hand. JD has framed the issue perfectly. All other agendas, and Foss' role vis a vis energy, are irrelevant to the main issue, which is the Guy is accused of abusing a counselor relationship.

"Why now" remains a valid question, for which I have answer and less interest.

I content myself in knowing that three billion Chinese don't care.
Title: Nlicole Foss is a pollution pushing gossiping liar
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2017, 10:35:54 AM
When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

On the BS Meter, Nicole usually puts it at about 80%.  Guy pegs it.

RE

The difference is not that significant, but it is interesting that you do not enter into the "20%" from Foss that you think is "acceptable". Guy does not bullshit about ERoEI happpy talk for fracking or any other fossil fuel. Guy cites scientific studies on extinction rates. Foss plays math games and cites fossil fuel industry stats like they were handed down to Moses on the Mountain while consitently ignoring pollution costs. Guy consistently points out the pollution costs.

Yeah, Guy is a super doomer and into some hyperbole about how soon it all comes crashing down. So? What part of the peer reviewed scientific studies he cites are not truthful or accurate? At least he doesn't pretend fossil fuels are God's gift to humanity. To claim, as Foss has done, that we will all die without fossil fuels is really pegging the BS meter!

Guy just states we will die BECAUSE we pollute, which is scientifically irrefutable (See: Do not industrially shit where you eat).


(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tKBsTGeWsKc/VznRUcnfo1I/AAAAAAAAyok/paDRwKq7pxQvOB0MOBc7Y7FOeBpjxwj6wCLcB/s1600/fracked%2Bgas%2Bis%2Ba%2Bbridge%2Bto%2Bnowhere.PNG)

Tell me WHO iis the REAL BULLSHITTER.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-220815161550.png)

Tell me WHO iis the REAL BULLSHITTER.

In measuring Bullshit, IMHO Dr. McStinksion wins hands down.  There simply is no way every last Homo Sap will be dead by 2026.  Utter bullshit, he is out of his mind or using it to manipulate females who are depressed about the situation..

RE

Nice dodge of the real issues here.  ;) :evil4: Nice effort to keep peddling unproven assertions of manipulation of vulnerable females while ignoring all the harm Foss has caused by peddling polluting crap. Well done. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)

Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 10:44:17 AM


Foss is GUILTY as sin of being a world class manipulator. The possible argument on her behalf that she manipulates greedy people instead of the "vulnerable" is a rather strange defense, don'tcha think?

So here we have a mean spirited bit of gossip dressed up in psychobabble while the incredibly mean spirited greed based push by foss and friends to defend the polluting status quo is totally ignored as if that has no bearing on the lives and health of ALL life forms on  this planet.


(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)

Well I'll willingly admit that I'm out of the Foss "Automatic Earth" loop.  Last time I read that shit Ashvin still had his own blog...as in before he started working for Foss. 

I was just reading AE to try to make sense of economics.  Then I read JMG's The Wealth of Nature and closed the book on the case of economics.  JMG is right about economics and all of that other shit is a bunch of smoke and mirrors in "this is too complicated for the layman to understand" equations and algorithms.  Modern day economics is based entirely on energy.  That is the limiting factor.  Digibits are not limited by anything but energy.  That's why this global economy hinging on BAU will continue until the Earth catches fire, we run out of petroleum, or somebody pushes the nuke button. 

Foss and Guy are both out to make money on collapse issues.  End of story. 

Guy likes to fuck around on his wife and play S&M with "helpless" females and Foss apparently likes to use assholes like Guy to further her own message.   

Personally I have no tolerance for feminism.  That's an entire other debate though.  However it is tied up in the accusations towards Guy.  I come to his defense just because he's a man, and I think if the liberal feminist had their way we'd all be castrated.  They've been actively setting up a world where men are only needed for sperm banks.  That's bullshit.  Yin and Yang after all.  And what's wrong with a caring mother who stays at home and raises children and keeps a healthy household?  Women have estrogen and oxytocin after all.  They are wired to care about little children and their childish complaints about toys and feelings and attempting to understand the cruel world.  Mom is supposed to hold the child and nurse him, tell him it's all going to be okay, and be a refuse from the cruel world.  Dad is not supposed to do that.  Dad is supposed to kill shit, sweat his ass off, and protect the nest.  He's supposed to kill something, rip it's guts out, skin it, and feed it to the family.  Touchy feeling doesn't kill an animal and rip it's guts out.   

Shit...I went off and went on a rant.  I'm just saying...fuck wearing pink shirts and "feeling" for some dumb bitch who just got off on some rough little pricking. 

The bigger issue for me, in this story, is the emasculation of the archetypical father that the feminist are all up in arms about.  They want to cut Zeus's dick off and pretend like he doesn't wield the power of creation with his...ummm...lightning bolt. 
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: monsta666 on August 27, 2017, 10:45:31 AM
I never knew Guy was a grief councillor. Now whether he has had sex with his patients is one thing but what these facts demonstrate is he is using his theory as a means of gaining clients for his business. Since there is a monetary as well as emotional incentive towards pushing his narrative one has to wonder how impartial he is when making statements. I never believed his theory on near-term human extinction and took whatever he said with a large pinch of salt. With these revelations I am even less inclined to believe what he says as I can see he is using his theories to make money and take advantage of vulnerable people. Now whether the more extreme accusations of rape or even sex are true or not is another matter but what he is doing is quite dubious and unethical... Even if we ignore the more extreme allegations. Now the issue here is there is no direct accusations and it is all insinuated so it is really quite difficult to decide on the veracity of the claims.
Title: Re: Nlicole Foss is a pollution pushing gossiping liar
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 10:52:49 AM
Nice dodge of the real issues here.  ;) :evil4: Nice effort to keep peddling unproven assertions of manipulation of vulnerable females while ignoring all the harm Foss has caused by peddling polluting crap. Well done.

I just call 'em as I see 'em AG.  You may not like it, but Guy Struck Out in my book and he is out of the Batter's Box for me.

If you wish to be a Dr. McStinksion supporter, this is your choice.  I can't buy that shit, but apparently you can.

(http://dailyfantasysportsreviews.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Umpire-Strike-Out.png)

RE
Title: Nicole Foss is credibility challenged
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2017, 10:55:01 AM
I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's rape, than it's a police matter. 
For a Prophet of Doom, consensual sex is purely a private matter.

If Guy wants to call himself a Grief Counselor, though, he needs to follow their Code of Ethics.  If their code of ethics states that he can't have sexual relations with a current client, then he should have told her that he couldn't be her counselor effectively because he was sexually attracted to her.  Then he would have been free to pursue a relationship with her, if she consented.

With all due respect, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

AG, with the greatest affection and respect, it IS the matter at hand. JD has framed the issue perfectly. All other agendas, and Foss' role vis a vis energy, are irrelevant to the main issue, which is the Guy is accused of abusing a counselor relationship.

"Why now" remains a valid question, for which I have answer and less interest.

I content myself in knowing that three billion Chinese don't care.


I personally do not like Guy McPherson. I consider him arrogant and totally disagree with his take on evolution and HOW SOON we will go extinct from fouling our nest with suicidal behavior. But he does not now, or ever has, lied about any fo the scientifc studies he cites. In contrast, Foss DOES have a track record of polluting energy ERoEI  bold faced mendacity. 

You may think  I am fixated on the pollution issue and see a pollution defending agenda where there is none. I considered that possibility and, after thinking it through, have rejected it.

You are a knowledgeable writer and know EXACTLY how the propaganda industry "works" and how a hit piece is formulated. You understand  defamatory innuendo and can smell it a mile away.

But HERE you are flat refusing to engage in the key question, Surly. The key question is CUI BONO? This is a DOG WHISTLE for limousine liberal tear jerking distraction!

You don't see that.

You want to stand up and defend vulnerable females everywhere. Me too.

But FOSS DOES NOT GIVE A TINKER'S DAMN ABOUT vulnearble females. Foss is about SHILLING FOR FOSSIL FUELS.

If you wish to claim that Foss's "energy expert" MO has no bearing on this particular issue, I will respectfully continue to disagree. EVERYTHING that Foss does publicly has to do with making money. And if you have not studied, in depth, HOW she has "made her money" over  the last decade, I suggest you do.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 10:59:46 AM
I never knew Guy was a grief councillor. Now whether he has had sex with his patients is one thing but what these facts demonstrate is he is using his theory as a means of gaining clients for his business. Since there is a monetary as well as emotional incentive towards pushing his narrative one has to wonder how impartial he is when making statements. I never believed his theory on near-term human extinction and took whatever he said with a large pinch of salt. With these revelations I am even less inclined to believe what he says as I can see he is using his theories to make money and take advantage of vulnerable people. Now whether the more extreme accusations of rape or even sex are true or not is another matter but what he is doing is quite dubious and unethical... Even if we ignore the more extreme allegations. Now the issue here is there is no direct accusations and it is all insinuated so it is really quite difficult to decide on the veracity of the claims.

I agree with you 100% Monsta. 

Guy is most certainly an asshole.  If it's all true then he is definitely abusing his power as a "grief counselor" and he's most certainly creating a market for his new certificate of power.  He's doing that to make money.  He's also, if the allegations are true, most certainly doing it to get laid...and if he's married he's a philandering bastard on top of that.  Which...Zeus was the achetypical philandering asshole...I'll admit...and that's immoral as well, but it doesn't warrant castration of the male role in this world. 

Guy is an asshole and Foss is a bitch. 

And so the human tragicomedy continues perpetuating on down through the ages. 

For the record, if Guy did set up the conditions just to take advantage of sensitive females then he definitely deserves public scorn.  However, it's not Foss's job to make sure nobody else suffers from another pretend rape pricking at the hands of Dr. Mcstinksion.  How does being vulnerable because you believe we're all going to die in the next couple of years mean that you don't want to fuck anyways?  What do the two have in relation to one another? 

That's the part I don't get.  You're vulnerable because you are upset that we're all supposedly going to die in the next couple of years?  You're vulnerable about NTHE?!!!  If we're all going to die then we might as well all be fucking each other!!!!  Why not?  As Walter in The Big Lebowski said so poetically "8 year olds dude."   
Title: Nicole Foss and the Automatic Enema
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2017, 11:01:39 AM
Nice dodge of the real issues here.  ;) :evil4: Nice effort to keep peddling unproven assertions of manipulation of vulnerable females while ignoring all the harm Foss has caused by peddling polluting crap. Well done.

I just call 'em as I see 'em AG.  You may not like it, but Guy Struck Out in my book and he is out of the Batter's Box for me.

If you wish to be a Dr. McStinksion supporter, this is your choice.  I can't buy that shit, but apparently you can.
(http://dailyfantasysportsreviews.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Umpire-Strike-Out.png)

RE

When logic is not on your side, you  twist the words of the debater and resort to insults. That's beneath you and  sad.  :( Foss, a serial liar on behalf of polluting energy sources, is your friend. You are being loyal, not logical. I get it.  Have a nice day, RE.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss is credibility challenged
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 11:09:46 AM
In contrast, Foss DOES have a track record of polluting energy ERoEI  bold faced mendacity. 



What are you talking about here Agelbert?  Can  you spell it out for me how she's a shill for the fossil fuel industry?  I don't need links and shit, just splain it to me please! 

Is she saying that without fossil fuel energy we're all fucked?  As in our fossil fuel powered global civilization won't work any longer without fossil fuels? 

I happen to agree with that if it's the case.  Our civilization rose up and was engineered and created around petroleum energy after all.  All of our infrastructure requires petroleum inputs fro our roads and bridges to the mining of metals for water pipes to the making of solar farms and massive wind turbines.  We are quite simply FUCKED without petroleum. 

Could there be another way?  Sure, there most certainly could have been...like less 6 billion people ago.  To think that we keep this whole shebang going on alternative energy is impossible.  Not without 6 billion or so people dying miserable deaths. 

Here's the thing I've learned in the last year.  Idealism is delusion.  Especially in a global economy perpetuated by fossil fuel BAU.  Respectfully, Agelbert...I'm not trying to piss you off...but I'm not buying renewable energy saving our civilization either.  In my mind, we've got a better chance of colonizing mars. 
Title: Re: Nicole Foss and the Automatic Enema
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 11:27:40 AM
Nice dodge of the real issues here.  ;) :evil4: Nice effort to keep peddling unproven assertions of manipulation of vulnerable females while ignoring all the harm Foss has caused by peddling polluting crap. Well done.

I just call 'em as I see 'em AG.  You may not like it, but Guy Struck Out in my book and he is out of the Batter's Box for me.

If you wish to be a Dr. McStinksion supporter, this is your choice.  I can't buy that shit, but apparently you can.
(http://dailyfantasysportsreviews.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Umpire-Strike-Out.png)

RE

When logic is not on your side, you  twist the words of the debater and resort to insults. That's beneath you and  sad.

Where is the "insult"?  ???  :icon_scratch:

All I said was you choose to place the words of Guy McPherson over those of Nicole Foss.  I choose to put those of Nicole over Guy.

Do not accuse me of insulting you.  If I want to insult a person, I can do it a whole lot better than that.  I am insulted by the fact you are accusing me of insulting you!  I did not do that, and you need to apologize to me for insinuating that I did.

RE
Title: Evidence That Foss is a Fossul Fuel Industry Shill
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2017, 12:10:21 PM
In contrast, Foss DOES have a track record of polluting energy ERoEI  bold faced mendacity.



What are you talking about here Agelbert?  Can  you spell it out for me how she's a shill for the fossil fuel industry?  I don't need links and shit, just splain it to me please! 

Is she saying that without fossil fuel energy we're all fucked?  As in our fossil fuel powered global civilization won't work any longer without fossil fuels? 

I happen to agree with that if it's the case.  Our civilization rose up and was engineered and created around petroleum energy after all.  All of our infrastructure requires petroleum inputs fro our roads and bridges to the mining of metals for water pipes to the making of solar farms and massive wind turbines.  We are quite simply FUCKED without petroleum. 

Could there be another way?  Sure, there most certainly could have been...like less 6 billion people ago.  To think that we keep this whole shebang going on alternative energy is impossible.  Not without 6 billion or so people dying miserable deaths. 

Here's the thing I've learned in the last year.  Idealism is delusion.  Especially in a global economy perpetuated by fossil fuel BAU.  Respectfully, Agelbert...I'm not trying to piss you off...but I'm not buying renewable energy saving our civilization either.  In my mind, we've got a better chance of colonizing mars.



Well, my friend, it is difficult to begin with your stated assumption that I am delusional. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817122018.gif) You know enough about me to realize I do ALL the math, not simply what is convenient to our polluting self serving suicidal status quo. And hyperbole about the probabilities of colonizing mars versus running our civilization on renewable energy makes it crystal clear that you do not respect what I have posted, even though you may respect me personally.

Lucid, I appreciate and am grateful for your respect, but this energy discussion has NEVER been about me or you or Foss or RE.

Yes, Foss is a shill for the fossil fuel industry. My assertion is based on the fact that she advocates happy talk ERoEI numbers for Fracking and petroleum. Yes, she admits coal is bad news and nuclear power is horribly expensive and polluting as well. So?

Her defense of Fracking amounts to shilling, period. If you want the long explanation, just ask. I will repost my polite letter to her several years ago tearing every single point she made about fossil fuels in general (and Fracking in particular) to tiny shreds. I made it clear that fossil fuels had a MUCH LOWER ERoEI than the fossil fuel industry shills like Charles Hall (Monsta's hero  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)) claimed.

The response was ZERO on energy. There was no discussion of pollution costs. There was no discussion of my assertion that Energy Return on Energy Invested was actually CAPITAL RETURN on CAPITAL INVESTED (thanks in part, but not all, to subsidies coerced from we-the-people INCLUDED in the ERoEI happy talk Foss and Hall peddle) because fossil fuels are energy NEGATIVE when all the costs are included.

Ilargi "responded" by claiming I did not write with the "caliber" that was "acceptable" at the Automatic Enema Earth. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)

RE went to bat for me, but they were not interested, and neither was Ashvin, who was an admin there at the time.

I will continue to disagree with you about our inability to survive without fossil fuels, and will continue to claim the "delusional" view, according to you, that, on the contrary, we guarantee our extinction by continuing to use fossil fuels.

But that has nothing to do with the Foss fossil fuel shilling MO. It is delusional to think we can continue to foul our nest and survive the sixth Mass Extinction. Why can't you understand that?

(https://d3pcsg2wjq9izr.cloudfront.net/files/40866/images/Edison-solar-energy.jpg)
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 12:16:54 PM
I am still waiting for the apology for you accusing me of insulting you AG.

RE
Title: Re: Evidence That Foss is a Fossul Fuel Industry Shill
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 12:41:11 PM

Well, my friend, it is difficult to begin with your stated assumption that I am delusional. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817122018.gif) You know enough about me to realize I do ALL the math, not simply what is convenient to our polluting self serving suicidal status quo. And hyperbole about the probabilities of colonizing mars versus running our civilization on renewable energy makes it crystal clear that you do not respect what I have posted, even though you may respect me personally.

That's not true.  I do respect what you have posted (although I have not seen a lot of it...admittedly).  I just don't believe we can keep our current BAU petroleum heavy way of life going for 7 billion people and counting on renewables. 


Quote
Yes, Foss is a shill for the fossil fuel industry. My assertion is based on the fact that she advocates happy talk ERoEI numbers for Fracking and petroleum. Yes, she admits coal is bad news and nuclear power is horribly expensive and polluting as well. So?

Like I said earlier, I don't know what she says or advocates.  I just know that she is part of the PO blogosphere.  I'm not disputing that she may be a shill for the fossil fuel industry.  I'm just saying that if she is I don't know how.  That's what I was asking for you to elucidate for me.  Just don't assume I've read everything that you have written here on the Diner. 


Quote
Her defense of Fracking amounts to shilling, period. If you want the long explanation, just ask. I will repost my polite letter to her several years ago tearing every single point she made about fossil fuels in general (and Fracking in particular) to tiny shreds. I made it clear that fossil fuels had a MUCH LOWER ERoEI than the fossil fuel industry shills like Charles Hall (Monsta's hero  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)) claimed.

The response was ZERO on energy. There was no discussion of pollution costs. There was no discussion of my assertion that Energy Return on Energy Invested was actually CAPITAL RETURN on CAPITAL INVESTED (thanks in part, but not all, to subsidies coerced from we-the-people INCLUDED in the ERoEI happy talk Foss and Hall peddle) because fossil fuels are energy NEGATIVE when all the costs are included.

Ilargi "responded" by claiming I did not write with the "caliber" that was "acceptable" at the Automatic Enema Earth. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)

RE went to bat for me, but they were not interested, and neither was Ashvin, who was an admin there at the time.

So she defended fracking?  How so?  That seems pretty stupid from a pollution point of view.  As in, it's highly polluting.  It's also a bandaid on the problem of fossil energy depletion.  It's only viable due to gullible investors and government subsidies.  I had no idea that she was saying that fracking was a good idea. 

Quote
I will continue to disagree with you about our inability to survive without fossil fuels, and will continue to claim the "delusional" view, according to you, that, on the contrary, we guarantee our extinction by continuing to use fossil fuels.

Understand, I agree that we likely guarantee our extinction by continuing to use fossil fuels.  Also, I never said we could not survive without fossil fuels.  Good try though.  What I said was that our fossil fuel dependent global civilization will not survive without fossil fuels.  It was built up and designed around fossil energy and resources after all.  However, man was around long before fossil energy was discovered.  Entire civilizations rose and fell before fossil energy.  Given that we don't burn the Earth down we'll have more civilizations that don't require petroleum energy.  What I AM SAYING is that this particular civilization is FUCKED without fossil energy.  What I AM SAYING is that renewable energies are not going to continue this particular civilization unabated. 

I figure something like 80% of the population is going to parish in the next couple of decades.  That is going to happen because fossil energy is why that 80% is here in the first place.  Can we build a renewable energy civilization up after that?  Sure...I see no reason why not.  It's not as if we're going to run out of fossil fuels to continue creating renewable energy gewgaws after all.  We may very well use the remaining fossil energy, after an 80% die off, to engineer an ecotechnic world. 

Quote
But that has nothing to do with the Foss fossil fuel shilling MO. It is delusional to think we can continue to foul our nest and survive the sixth Mass Extinction. Why can't you understand that?

I do understand that.  Why can't you understand that I understand that?  Fossil fuel burning is going to kill us.  A civilization dependent on a limited resource is doomed.  Renewable energy is based on the energy of the SUN, and we've got billions of years of that left (I think). 

Can you demonstrate how we make one of those massive wind turbines without fossil energy?  I mean from mining the material to constructing the turbine?  Ditto with PV.  Honestly, that's the piece I'm missing in your renewable energy revolution story. 

Title: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: agelbert on August 27, 2017, 12:58:07 PM

Well, my friend, it is difficult to begin with your stated assumption that I am delusional. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817122018.gif) You know enough about me to realize I do ALL the math, not simply what is convenient to our polluting self serving suicidal status quo. And hyperbole about the probabilities of colonizing mars versus running our civilization on renewable energy makes it crystal clear that you do not respect what I have posted, even though you may respect me personally.

That's not true.  I do respect what you have posted (although I have not seen a lot of it...admittedly).  I just don't believe we can keep our current BAU petroleum heavy way of life going for 7 billion people and counting on renewables. 


Quote
Yes, Foss is a shill for the fossil fuel industry. My assertion is based on the fact that she advocates happy talk ERoEI numbers for Fracking and petroleum. Yes, she admits coal is bad news and nuclear power is horribly expensive and polluting as well. So?

Like I said earlier, I don't know what she says or advocates.  I just know that she is part of the PO blogosphere.  I'm not disputing that she may be a shill for the fossil fuel industry.  I'm just saying that if she is I don't know how.  That's what I was asking for you to elucidate for me.  Just don't assume I've read everything that you have written here on the Diner. 


Quote
Her defense of Fracking amounts to shilling, period. If you want the long explanation, just ask. I will repost my polite letter to her several years ago tearing every single point she made about fossil fuels in general (and Fracking in particular) to tiny shreds. I made it clear that fossil fuels had a MUCH LOWER ERoEI than the fossil fuel industry shills like Charles Hall (Monsta's hero  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)) claimed.

The response was ZERO on energy. There was no discussion of pollution costs. There was no discussion of my assertion that Energy Return on Energy Invested was actually CAPITAL RETURN on CAPITAL INVESTED (thanks in part, but not all, to subsidies coerced from we-the-people INCLUDED in the ERoEI happy talk Foss and Hall peddle) because fossil fuels are energy NEGATIVE when all the costs are included.

Ilargi "responded" by claiming I did not write with the "caliber" that was "acceptable" at the Automatic Enema Earth. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)

RE went to bat for me, but they were not interested, and neither was Ashvin, who was an admin there at the time.

So she defended fracking?  How so?  That seems pretty stupid from a pollution point of view.  As in, it's highly polluting.  It's also a bandaid on the problem of fossil energy depletion.  It's only viable due to gullible investors and government subsidies.  I had no idea that she was saying that fracking was a good idea. 

Quote
I will continue to disagree with you about our inability to survive without fossil fuels, and will continue to claim the "delusional" view, according to you, that, on the contrary, we guarantee our extinction by continuing to use fossil fuels.

Understand, I agree that we likely guarantee our extinction by continuing to use fossil fuels.  Also, I never said we could not survive without fossil fuels.  Good try though.  What I said was that our fossil fuel dependent global civilization will not survive without fossil fuels.  It was built up and designed around fossil energy and resources after all.  However, man was around long before fossil energy was discovered.  Entire civilizations rose and fell before fossil energy.  Given that we don't burn the Earth down we'll have more civilizations that don't require petroleum energy.  What I AM SAYING is that this particular civilization is FUCKED without fossil energy.  What I AM SAYING is that renewable energies are not going to continue this particular civilization unabated. 

I figure something like 80% of the population is going to parish in the next couple of decades.  That is going to happen because fossil energy is why that 80% is here in the first place.  Can we build a renewable energy civilization up after that?  Sure...I see no reason why not.  It's not as if we're going to run out of fossil fuels to continue creating renewable energy gewgaws after all.  We may very well use the remaining fossil energy, after an 80% die off, to engineer an ecotechnic world. 

Quote
But that has nothing to do with the Foss fossil fuel shilling MO. It is delusional to think we can continue to foul our nest and survive the sixth Mass Extinction. Why can't you understand that?

I do understand that.  Why can't you understand that I understand that?  Fossil fuel burning is going to kill us.  A civilization dependent on a limited resource is doomed.  Renewable energy is based on the energy of the SUN, and we've got billions of years of that left (I think). 

Can you demonstrate how we make one of those massive wind turbines without fossil energy?  I mean from mining the material to constructing the turbine?  Ditto with PV.  Honestly, that's the piece I'm missing in your renewable energy revolution story. 

Once again you are avoiding the central issue here of Foss's shilling for fossil fuels. Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013, while there probably WAS enough time to solve this mess.

Lucid, I am NOT trying to convince you that Renewable Energy is our only way out. I am trying to convince that that, whether it is or not, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. Why can't you understand that? When you are in a hole, it is customary to quite digging.

I'm done trying to convince you. RE insults me and then wants an apology! You claim to respect what I write yet you never cite the NUTS AND BOLTS of the GRADUAL transition from polluting energy that I point to in my numerous posts.

I think I'll have a cup of coffee and pretend I do not exist.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-041115022304.png)
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 01:19:00 PM


Once again you are avoiding the central issue here of Foss's shilling for fossil fuels. Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013, while there probably WAS enough time to solve this mess.

Lucid, I am NOT trying to convince you that Renewable Energy is our only way out. I am trying to convince that that, whether it is or not, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. Why can't you understand that? When you are in a hole, it is customary to quite digging.

I'm done trying to convince you. RE insults me and then wants an apology! You claim to respect what I write yet you never cite the NUTS AND BOLTS of the GRADUAL transition from polluting energy that I point to in my numerous posts.

I think I'll have a cup of coffee and pretend I do not exist.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-041115022304.png)

First of all, RE is an asshole.  Don't worry about his need for an apology.  It's ridiculous. 

Secondly, it seems to me that you are responding to things that I have not said, and not responding to things that I have. 

I fail to see how we get a renewable energy revolution that will support BAU.  BAU, by it's very nature, is unsustainable.  BAU is about continual growth in GDP.  It's about continual growth in the supply of money so that the fractional reserve bullshit can be paid back to continue giving the plutocrats their continual bolus of profit for profits sake. 

The entire system is destructive and unsustainable.  What I don't understand is why you advocate for a renewable energy revolution that will sustain this unsustainable mess?  It's unsustainable for a reason.  Our population is at least 80% bigger then it should be, and that due to fossil energy.  Our civilization was designed for fossil energy usage.  To make money. 

As far as I can tell, Agelbert, we agree on everything, with the caveat that I think renewable energy is not a solution to this predicament we have.  There is no solution to it.  That's the hard cold bitch of the truth.  There is no solution to a civilization that was built on the energy of fossil fuels, and that requires that same energy to continue to function. 

Further, I'm not convinced that we are facing an extinction event.  Obviously a lot of organisms are going extinct.  Everyday more of them go extinct.  I don't think humans will go extinct until the sun burns out.  We're facing apocalyptic ties, no doubt about that.  We're facing those times just as a drunk faces a hang over. 

I'm not saying that fossil energy is a good thing.  I'm saying that it's the thing that our civilization requires.  Without it, we don't go extinct, but most of us die.  What rises up from those ashes is anyone's guess.  I'm guessing that some type of ecotechnic future rises from it.  I don't think we lose the technologies and knowledge we have gained as a species.  I just think that most of us perish.  Just like the events of the black plague.  This is the new black death.  After a large percentage of the population dies we'll have a new golden age. 

We're in the middle of the crisis period of the black death.  Nothing anyone does is going to change the momentum of BAU at this point.  President Dump is the president after all. 
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 01:24:29 PM
First of all, RE is an asshole.

I have NEVER denied being an asshole.  However, I am a well experienced one and good at it.  You are piss poor as an asshole.  Don't quit your day job.

RE
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 01:38:38 PM
First of all, RE is an asshole.

I have NEVER denied being an asshole.  However, I am a well experienced one and good at it.  You are piss poor as an asshole.  Don't quit your day job.

RE

LOL!!!

For real RE? 

 :D

I guess I'll take that as a compliment.  Thanks for the compliment RE.  I never have thought that I was an asshole.   :laugh:
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: Surly1 on August 27, 2017, 01:41:25 PM
First of all, RE is an asshole.

I have NEVER denied being an asshole.  However, I am a well experienced one and good at it.  You are piss poor as an asshole.  Don't quit your day job.

RE

LOL!!!

For real RE? 

 :D

I guess I'll take that as a compliment.  Thanks for the compliment RE.  I never have thought that I was an asshole.   :laugh:

Quote from: The Head Asshole Around Here
You are piss poor as an asshole.  Don't quit your day job.

Take it from an expert, LD. You'e no asshole.
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 01:42:37 PM
I never have thought that I was an asshole.

Then you are not being very realistic in your self-assessment.

RE
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 01:45:23 PM
I never have thought that I was an asshole.

Then you are not being very realistic in your self-assessment.

RE

Have you lost your mind RE...LOL  :icon_scratch:

You do realize that you basically said I was not an asshole.  If I'm not good at being an asshole, then It's probably because I'm not an asshole.  If I'm not an asshole, then how can I be an asshole? 

Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 01:47:42 PM
First of all, RE is an asshole.

I have NEVER denied being an asshole.  However, I am a well experienced one and good at it.  You are piss poor as an asshole.  Don't quit your day job.

RE

LOL!!!

For real RE? 

 :D

I guess I'll take that as a compliment.  Thanks for the compliment RE.  I never have thought that I was an asshole.   :laugh:

Quote from: The Head Asshole Around Here
You are piss poor as an asshole.  Don't quit your day job.

Take it from an expert, LD. You'e no asshole.

LOL  :D :roll2:

One would think the head asshole would stop while he's behind.  But not RE, he'll just double down.   ;D

Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 01:49:30 PM
Further, I will wear my badge of "least of an asshole around here" proudly.  And sleep good at night knowing that I suck so bad at being an asshole that I'm almost not even an asshole! 

How did I get so lucky? 
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 01:50:08 PM
You do realize that you basically said I was not an asshole. 

No, what I said was that you are an incompetent asshole.  Please read for comprehension.

RE
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 01:56:39 PM
You do realize that you basically said I was not an asshole. 

No, what I said was that you are an incompetent asshole.  Please read for comprehension.

RE

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I did RE.  What is to comprehend here is that I'm incompetent at being an asshole?  Right, so I'm not good at being an asshole...because I'm not one. 

You're just using this as a way to say I'm incompetent and no good at something.  You are slinging insults at me.  I was just stating the obvious, you are an asshole, and you agreed that you are not only an asshole, but a very competent and expert asshole.  I agree with you on that count.  However, you are such an asshole that you can't even see that you are attempting to insult me by saying that I'm not an asshole.

Really, RE, you need to get a grip.  Also, since I know you must have the last word, go ahead, but I'm not going to continue with this now extremely immature exchange. 

You are an asshole, you agree, I agree, everyone agrees.  I am incompetent as an asshole, fine...that's cause I'm not trying to be one.  I was just trying to have an intelligent debate with Agelbert.  I was trying to get to the bottom of our misunderstanding.  You decided you needed an apology, and then you agreed you were an expert asshole.  So why should one apologize to the "head asshole around here"?   :laugh:
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 01:59:34 PM
Basically, RE, you are saying that you deserve an apology for being an asshole.

The world does not work that way homey.  Assholes do not deserve apologies.  They deserve public ridicule.  So now you have something in common with the original intent of this thread.  You and Guy are both assholes. 

Congratulations.   :emthup:
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 02:11:22 PM
I am incompetent as an asshole, fine...that's cause I'm not trying to be one.

You do not have to try.  It comes naturally to you.  So far though, you have not cultivated this aspect of your personality well, so it makes for confusing prose.

RE
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 02:18:30 PM
So far though, you have not cultivated this aspect of your personality well, so it makes for confusing prose.

RE

Yeah?  How's that?  Care to elaborate? 
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Randy C on August 27, 2017, 02:23:23 PM
I hate to have to be the one that points this out, but how did this conversation become about Nicole Foss????

All she did, in this case, was post an open letter that she didn't write or sign to her facebook page where I saw it.  I thought that the community should know that six people who are a part of the NTE community thought it necessary to call him out in public over what he has been doing.

That's all.  I passed it on to RE for him to decide what to do with it.  It certainly was not my intention to get you guys all up in a shit storm with each other fighting over who was the bigger "ass hole," or over what you may think of Nicole Foss.

Wasn't the point guys.  Just thought you should all know that there are some potentially real issues off in NTE land with McP's behavior.  Foss had nothing to do with the open letter other than posting it.  I'm not saying that to defend Foss or what she may or may not believe.

Okay?
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: RE on August 27, 2017, 02:24:56 PM
So far though, you have not cultivated this aspect of your personality well, so it makes for confusing prose.

RE

Yeah?  How's that?  Care to elaborate?

No, because if I did it would drive an even bigger wedge between us now than already exists.

RE
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Randy C on August 27, 2017, 02:38:23 PM
https://deepgreenresistance.blogspot.com/2017/08/statement-on-guy-mcpherson.html

More from Mike Sliwa.
Title: Re: Go to my news channel. I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 03:17:42 PM
So far though, you have not cultivated this aspect of your personality well, so it makes for confusing prose.

RE

Yeah?  How's that?  Care to elaborate?

No, because if I did it would drive an even bigger wedge between us now than already exists.

RE

Go for it RE.  I don't much care for assholes and you are an asshole.  I don't see how you telling us all what you think about my prose is going to make our relationship worse. 

I use then/than, to/too wrong, I do the same with other words, I'm not educated enough, I never graduated from college.  I use "I" too much. 

Say what you will RE.  I can communicate well with words.  Maybe its an uneducated "gonzo" style.  So what?  How is my non-cultivation of asshole status making my prose confusing?  I'm still here.  You pissed me off saying I was a martyr and self-centered.  Both of which are not true.  Now my prose is confusing? 

Go ahead:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/prose?s=t (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/prose?s=t)

Quote
noun
1.
the ordinary form of spoken or written language, without metrical structure, as distinguished from poetry or verse.

Bring it on "head asshole around here." 
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: monsta666 on August 27, 2017, 03:31:47 PM
This whole tirade about assholes/incompetent assholes, whatever was unnecessary and childish RE. I do not consider LD an asshole but it is a pity that yet another thread got derailed for pettiness.

I would say to agelbert that I, like LD, agree with most of your statements. However my issue is I do not think our society is sustainable with ANY energy platform. I say this for the same reason mentioned previously: our economic system is designed only for perpetual growth. It cannot exist any other way. Therefore even if we made the assumption that renewable energy could replace fossil fuels 100% (a big assumption) due to the nature of growth we would soon hit some other limiting factor be it resources or pollution. It was one of the main points raised in the Limits to Growth book. Would you disagree with the topics raised in limits to growth that at some point economic growth is ultimately constrained by one of three limiting factors be it energy, resources or pollution? I think in this area there could be agreement.

The second big point is can we sustain seven billion (and counting) people using only renewable sources? Again in this one I would say no because it is dependent on fossil fuels for transportation and basic inputs for large scale industrial farming such as fertilizers or irrigation. Now I could be wrong and you could be right. But I think, we are reasonable people and even with disagreement it can be done amicably. I think the point I would agree with your philosophy is making a commitment towards sustainability. Even if ultimately unsuccessful there are secondary benefits that can be derived by following this course of action faithfully. The bigger emphasis has to come from reducing our overall consumption and following the ideas of the 3R's which in order of importance are Reduction, Reuse and Recycle with massive emphasis on the reduction bit. Caveat that should be mentioned even if it is obvious is that a serious attempt to reduce consumption will destroy our global economy. It is why no politician or mainstream environmental group is serious about reducing consumption on the aggregate level. This destruction of the economy is the uncomfortable truth and side-effect of reducing consumption. We are hooked like a heroin addict and like all bad drug addictions the decision to go cold turkey could kill us. Even with a slow taper it can still be a long nightmare that never really ends and even when it does end you (humanity) are never the same as before you took the drug. The after effects will haunt us for a long time...
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: luciddreams on August 27, 2017, 04:26:28 PM
This whole tirade about assholes/incompetent assholes, whatever was unnecessary and childish RE. I do not consider LD an asshole but it is a pity that yet another thread got derailed for pettiness.

I would say to agelbert that I, like LD, agree with most of your statements. However my issue is I do not think our society is sustainable with ANY energy platform. I say this for the same reason mentioned previously: our economic system is designed only for perpetual growth. It cannot exist any other way. Therefore even if we made the assumption that renewable energy could replace fossil fuels 100% (a big assumption) due to the nature of growth we would soon hit some other limiting factor be it resources or pollution. It was one of the main points raised in the Limits to Growth book. Would you disagree with the topics raised in limits to growth that at some point economic growth is ultimately constrained by one of three limiting factors be it energy, resources or pollution? I think in this area there could be agreement.

The second big point is can we sustain seven billion (and counting) people using only renewable sources? Again in this one I would say no because it is dependent on fossil fuels for transportation and basic inputs for large scale industrial farming such as fertilizers or irrigation. Now I could be wrong and you could be right. But I think, we are reasonable people and even with disagreement it can be done amicably. I think the point I would agree with your philosophy is making a commitment towards sustainability. Even if ultimately unsuccessful there are secondary benefits that can be derived by following this course of action faithfully. The bigger emphasis has to come from reducing our overall consumption and following the ideas of the 3R's which in order of importance are Reduction, Reuse and Recycle with massive emphasis on the reduction bit. Caveat that should be mentioned even if it is obvious is that a serious attempt to reduce consumption will destroy our global economy. It is why no politician or mainstream environmental group is serious about reducing consumption on the aggregate level. This destruction of the economy is the uncomfortable truth and side-effect of reducing consumption. We are hooked like a heroin addict and like all bad drug addictions the decision to go cold turkey could kill us. Even with a slow taper it can still be a long nightmare that never really ends and even when it does end you (humanity) are never the same as before you took the drug. The after effects will haunt us for a long time...

I agree with all of that, wholeheartedly. 

It is a shame that the thread was derailed, and I take responsibility for that.  I flung the first arrow by calling RE an asshole.  Granted, I didn't think it would be a problem since he's a self proclaimed expert asshole, but I suppose that's besides the point. 

Maybe Agelbert should consider apologizing to RE for not allowing him to be an asshole without taking offense? 

I'm not sure how that works out...it's preposterous.  We're in doublethink land here.  After all, it's an insult to be told that you are an incompetent asshole. 

My apologies...I'll stop with the nonsense now.   :(
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Surly1 on August 27, 2017, 05:10:35 PM
I hate to have to be the one that points this out, but how did this conversation become about Nicole Foss????

All she did, in this case, was post an open letter that she didn't write or sign to her facebook page where I saw it.  I thought that the community should know that six people who are a part of the NTE community thought it necessary to call him out in public over what he has been doing.

That's all.  I passed it on to RE for him to decide what to do with it.  It certainly was not my intention to get you guys all up in a shit storm with each other fighting over who was the bigger "ass hole," or over what you may think of Nicole Foss.

Wasn't the point guys.  Just thought you should all know that there are some potentially real issues off in NTE land with McP's behavior.  Foss had nothing to do with the open letter other than posting it.  I'm not saying that to defend Foss or what she may or may not believe.

Okay?

-A couple of clarifying points. You did nothing wrong, and contributed materially to the discussion.
-AG has a hard-on for Nicole Foss and TAE stemming from several years back. Her name is akin to a red flag waved at a bull.
-No one here is capable of not taking something personally when the personal is not intended, or possesses the restraint necessary to not derail a thread in pursuit of an agenda. (With the exception of Eddie, with whom I sometimes disagree, but respect as an honest broker.)
-A reminder that Nicole mentioned this behavior to RE several years ago, and that he respected her wishes to not speak/write of it. So whatever has been dogging Guy has been rumored for some time. And where there is smoke there is usually fire.
-Guy's attitudes and behavior have done much to diminish the value of his analysis. This latest set of mutterings is just another log on the fire.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: K-Dog on August 28, 2017, 12:11:37 AM
I hate to have to be the one that points this out, but how did this conversation become about Nicole Foss????

All she did, in this case, was post an open letter that she didn't write or sign to her facebook page where I saw it.  I thought that the community should know that six people who are a part of the NTE community thought it necessary to call him out in public over what he has been doing.

That's all.  I passed it on to RE for him to decide what to do with it.  It certainly was not my intention to get you guys all up in a shit storm with each other fighting over who was the bigger "ass hole," or over what you may think of Nicole Foss.

Wasn't the point guys.  Just thought you should all know that there are some potentially real issues off in NTE land with McP's behavior.  Foss had nothing to do with the open letter other than posting it.  I'm not saying that to defend Foss or what she may or may not believe.

Okay?

I just read the so-called letter.  My expert opinion concludes that Nichole is a cunt for posting it if she did.

We learned recently that Guy McPherson, with whom DGR has collaborated in the past, has been accused by multiple women of sexually predatory behavior. We have seen screenshots of comments where he calls women vile names (e.g., he calls one woman a "cum-gargling whore"). These accusations have been corroborated from several sources.

At the time we collaborated with Guy McPherson, we had no idea that he was treating women so poorly. Deep Green Resistance has an absolute zero-tolerance policy for abuse and will stand against any predators being allowed access to the movement or anyone who could be harmed. Our hearts go out to his victims.

'multiple women' who have no names have accused is totally unacceptable.  If you are going to accuses a man of sexual impropriety you need to have a name or your name could just as well be the CIA, or Homeland Security a spurned lover or whatever.

Screen-shots of comments is totally unacceptable.  This is quoting trolls.

For Nicole to have posted this on her website (if she did) would make her a cum-gargling whore.  Consider the fact that someone else posted it to make her look bad as well.  Ignore the letter unless at least one of the 'multiple women' grows a name.

Shooting the messenger would be more honorable.

My apologies to Nicole if she has nothing to do with this and a pox on whomever the mud slinger is.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Surly1 on August 28, 2017, 08:36:40 AM
Color me reassured to know the planet is NOT in crisis? And that we are free to concentrate on what's important here: a really small shitstorm of judgement and self-righteousness rather than the collapse of the biosphere. And does it come with a t-shirt?

This issue seems to be captivating the Sliwas, Jensens, Westenras and Zawackis of the world. At least it lifts our gaze from Trump, if only for a moment.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: RE on August 28, 2017, 08:37:42 AM

I just read the so-called letter.  My expert opinion concludes that Nichole is a cunt for posting it if she did.

I don't know if Nicole posted this letter.  I assumed it was her because the story is so similar to the one she told me 2-3 years ago.

I agree that if there are "multiple women" involved in this at least a couple of them should come forward with first-person testimony.  It is however often difficult for women to do this, particularly ones who are emotionally fragile to begin with.  Without such testimony though, it remains just a rumour.

As a means to attack Guy's credibility, it's a very good one because a decent number of his fans are women.  If it is untrue, he needs to come out with a self-defense blog and respond to it, not ignore it or shrink away from it.  He should try to find out who actually posted the letter and who the women are who are making this complaint against him.  He needs to confront these women directly.

RE
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Ashvin on August 28, 2017, 01:10:42 PM
Anyone who doesn't recognize how serious this issue is for the "collapse community" is in serious denial of what they have become a part of. It is THE issue - how easy it is to let extreme Doomerism become a means of exploitation. In this case it happens to be exploitation of vulnerable women seeking counseling, in other cases it could be anyone. I don't think the author of the post about Guy, Nicole or whoever it was, even realizes how seriously that aspect of career collapse preaching affects everyone in its path. We shouldn't need someone to be a licensed counselor before we hold them to a code of ethics, as we should also hold ourselves.

Nicole wrote this as a hit piece on a bonafide climate scientist to discredit his facts and distract from her endless promotion of the fossil fuel industry? I'm sorry but that is grade A delusional. None of these people have enough clout to even be worthy of a major fossil fuel company's payroll. I'm sure they would admit that as well. Whether Guy did this stuff or not, the IDEA of what he is alleged to have done and/or be doing is appalling. The fact that some people here instantly felt the need to change the topic and attack Nicole or whoever else speaks volumes about their priorities and their unwillingness to confront this horrendous IDEA.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: K-Dog on August 28, 2017, 01:34:39 PM
Innocent till proven guilty and it is a foundation stone of American jurisprudence that one has the right to face one's accuser.

If women have experienced sexual harassment from Guy they need to come forward or forever hold their tongues.  That they might feel embarrassed is of no concern for the damage done to a mans reputation by such allegations far overshadows any temporary embarrassment felt by a few delicate flowers.

The fossil fuel industry has billions by which to sway public opinion.  That they would fabricate rumor to discredit an opponent is a given.  Guy may be wrong in the degree of warming Arctic  methane will cause, but he is not wrong in saying warming will result because of Arctic methane.  The that we know for sure.  Knarf posted a article this week proclaiming such a relationship and that article had nothing to do with Guy.  The only question is only how much warming will result and not will it happen.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Ashvin on August 28, 2017, 01:56:05 PM
Innocent till proven guilty and it is a foundation stone of American jurisprudence that one has the right to face one's accuser.

If women have experienced sexual harassment from Guy they need to come forward or forever hold their tongues.  That they might feel embarrassed is of no concern for the damage done to a mans reputation by such allegations far overshadows any temporary embarrassment felt by a few delicate flowers.

The fossil fuel industry has billions by which to sway public opinion.  That they would fabricate rumor to discredit an opponent is a given.  Guy may be wrong in the degree of warming Arctic  methane will cause, but he is not wrong in saying warming will result because of Arctic methane.  The that we know for sure.  Knarf posted a article this week proclaiming such a relationship and that article had nothing to do with Guy.  The only question is only how much warming will result and not will it happen.

Clearly collapse forums aren't, nor have they ever been, courts of law with high burdens of proof, nor have they ever intended to be them, and they probably shouldn't be. If they were, most (often legitimate) accusations of banksters and politicians in our system would fall short. We aren't trying people with a full corpus of constitutional protections here.

I would definitely feel sorry for the Guy if none of the accusations turned out to be true, but as of now he has been indicted to a degree that is not common among collapse bloggers with shared goals (unless of course you believe they are all bought). Furthermore, there is no doubt that the IDEA of using grief over collapse as a means of undue influence and exploitation is real and increasingly common IMO.

One could even say Trump is an example of this, albeit in a different sort of way.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: K-Dog on August 28, 2017, 02:18:55 PM
Ashvin,

I can respect your opinion that a preponderance of evidence should be considered but 'multiple women' none of whom have a name is more evidence of innocence than of guilt.  We have a preponderance of nothing.  If the alleged accusations had any substance there would be a line of women vying for the limelight.  Women love attention.  As there is no attention stronger than sympathy for a victim of sexual harassment be the victimization real or made up from thin air lack of an identifiable accuser speaks to innocence.

In the case of Bill Cosby women rightly feared a backlash.  He was an iconic black man with a reputation many would defend until enough truth could come out.  Guy in contrast is powerless and someone many love to hate.  There is no backlash to fear.

The willingness of some to post accusation without substance knowing that Guy is not popular enough for anyone to come to his defense and thus find fault with hurtful and baseless accusation demonstrates there is no fear Guy will be defended.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Ashvin on August 28, 2017, 03:34:13 PM
Ashvin,

I can respect your opinion that a preponderance of evidence should be considered but 'multiple women' none of whom have a name is more evidence of innocence than of guilt.  We have a preponderance of nothing.

If we're continuing on with the legal analogy, then this post is like an opening statement. It says that people should send them queries and they will provide evidence in support of their claims, so I don't think we can evaluate the case until that is done.

But again, even a preponderance of the evidence standard is asking too much. Most of the evidence of claims presented through online forums would not be allowed in a court of law, since most of it is hearsay not falling under any recognized exception.

Quote
If the alleged accusations had any substance there would be a line of women vying for the limelight.  Women love attention.  As there is no attention stronger than sympathy for a victim of sexual harassment be the victimization real or made up from thin air lack of an identifiable accuser speaks to innocence.

That's a bold assumption. I think real victims of sexual abuse may very well choose to remain silent. But beyond that, I think the point was that some of the women involved may not even realize how they had been victimized, but the people working with and around Guy could see it develop over years.

Quote
In the case of Bill Cosby women rightly feared a backlash.  He was an iconic black man with a reputation many would defend until enough truth could come out.  Guy in contrast is powerless and someone many love to hate.  There is no backlash to fear.

The willingness of some to post accusation without substance knowing that Guy is not popular enough for anyone to come to his defense and thus find fault with hurtful and baseless accusation demonstrates there is no fear Guy will be defended.

I'll admit I don't follow collapse bloggers anymore, so I have no idea how popular Guy is compared to other ones. I always had the impression he had a decent following, though.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Randy C on August 28, 2017, 04:55:34 PM
How about a little simple research.  Nicole did not post this open letter, other than to her facebook page where I saw it and passed the link on to RE.  RE said that Nicole had told him a similar story in confidence two years ago.  The letter in question was posted to the blog "Wrong Kind of Green" and was signed by Michael  Sliwa, Host of the radio show Nature Bats Last from August 2014 to May 2017, Derrick Jensen, Deep Green Resistance, Lierre Keith, Deep Green Resistance, Cory Morningstar, Wrong Kind of Green, Forrest Palmer, Wrong Kind of Green, Luke Orsborne, Wrong Kind of Green.

All these people were working with McP until recently when they withdrew their support from him.  Cory Morningstar stated on Facebook that McP told her he was going to do unspeakable things to her two daughters when they came to visit him in Belize.  Go on Facebook and ask Sliwa to friend you so you can see for yourself what she said.  In my opinion, McP's conduct in this matter has destroyed his credibility.  Ethics matters to me regardless of what others might think.  That is why I directed this open letter to RE for consideration on the Diner.

Again, this recent event has nothing to do with Nicole Foss other than she mirrored the open letter from "Wrong Kind of Green" onto her Facebook page.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Randy C on August 28, 2017, 05:06:01 PM
Seriously, can we get the basic story right and stop running around attacking the wrong person???

Nicole Foss did NOT write the letter in question. 

RE made a mistake in how he worded the title of the thread.  It was not Nicole Foss going public, it was Cory Morningstar going public.  She is the one accusing McP, as well as several other women, not Foss.  Again, send a friends request to Sliwa and see what Morningstar said for yourself.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Randy C on August 28, 2017, 05:25:14 PM
Cory Morningstar
8 hrs ·

You have the audacity to play victim, to pretend that myself and others have betrayed you – when you have betrayed not just women, not just me, but an entire community. Your behaviour has caused both pain and anguish. Do you really think we, who have wholly trusted and supported you for years, could enjoy this in any way? It has been excruciating for myself and others. It is surreal. Yet again, you offer no apology. You could care less. You justify your misogyny. Apparently, I had no idea who you really were, whatsoever.

I am horrified that I actually was planning to, at one point, bring two of my girls with me to see your "sanctuary" project in Belize.

Know this. If ever you so generously "indulged" any of my daughters in such "playful" rape fantasy and misogyny, it is very possible that both myself and their father would actually hunt you down and kill you. I think most mothers and fathers would do the same.

Know this. Today, you would have to walk over my dead body to have any access to my daughters.

If I could post what you said about me and by extension what you would undoubtedly attempt with my daughters, I would... But the system being what it is, they will align moreso with protection of your male rights than mine or my daughters and I will be even further victimized – thus, at this time, I will act accordingly on not placing your sick mind on display to the masses to prove how truly depraved you are.

#KnowThis

Cory Morningstar's reply to Guy McP posted to Sliwa's FB page today.  I didn't write it nor did Foss.... Cory, one of McP's accusers wrote it.
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: RE on August 28, 2017, 05:38:49 PM
Seriously, can we get the basic story right and stop running around attacking the wrong person???

Nicole Foss did NOT write the letter in question. 

RE made a mistake in how he worded the title of the thread.  It was not Nicole Foss going public, it was Cory Morningstar going public.  She is the one accusing McP, as well as several other women, not Foss.  Again, send a friends request to Sliwa and see what Morningstar said for yourself.

The confusion is my error.  Because this story matched the one Nicole told me a few years ago so closely, I assumed she was the author.  Apparently she is not.  I am g going to retitle the thread.

RE
Title: Re: Nicole Foss Goes Public with her Criticisms of Guy McPherson
Post by: Randy C on August 28, 2017, 05:51:22 PM
Seriously, can we get the basic story right and stop running around attacking the wrong person???

Nicole Foss did NOT write the letter in question. 

RE made a mistake in how he worded the title of the thread.  It was not Nicole Foss going public, it was Cory Morningstar going public.  She is the one accusing McP, as well as several other women, not Foss.  Again, send a friends request to Sliwa and see what Morningstar said for yourself.

The confusion is my error.  Because this story matched the one Nicole told me a few years ago so closely, I assumed she was the author.  Apparently she is not.  I am g going to retitle the thread.

RE

Thanks RE, I should have made it really clear what the source was.
Randy
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: RE on August 28, 2017, 06:09:16 PM
I have retitled this thread and added an Edit to the OP explaining how & why I misattributed this letter to Nicole Foss rather than the actual author, Cory Morningstar.

RE
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: K-Dog on August 28, 2017, 09:59:31 PM
I confess I saw no need to clarify the authorship.  It appeared baseless regardless the author and I'd need concrete proof to accuse anyone of writing it.

87 degrees on my drive home at 6:30 today.  Wherever Guy McPherson is you can bet it is hotter.  Way hotter!

By the way, when I met him he acted quite married.  He talked about his wife and he did not travel to Seattle alone.  He was a man with a message that nobody wants to hear.  Convinced is he that we will soon be extinct.

Quote
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself—
Yea, all which it inherit—shall dissolve,
And like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: K-Dog on August 28, 2017, 10:52:55 PM
(http://www.albertaschoolofdoggrooming.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Dog-Detective.png)

Whoa, hold up!


Quote
Cory Morningstar
8 hrs ·

I am horrified that I actually was planning to, at one point, bring two of my girls with me to see your "sanctuary" project in Belize.
...

Mcpherson has a sanctuary project in Belize or he doesn't.  If he does it is pretty strange for someone who says we are all going to cook to move down on top of the damn equator.  Not the smart place to put a sanctuary project considering his message.  Seems to me you would want young nymphs feeding you grapes in Alaska if you had an ounce of decency!




Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: RE on August 28, 2017, 11:28:30 PM
I confess I saw no need to clarify the authorship.  It appeared baseless regardless the author and I'd need concrete proof to accuse anyone of writing it.

Well, somebody must have written it and apparently it was not Nicole.  The title I had used misattributed the authorship to her and needed to be corrected.  According to RC, the author was Cory Morningstar, he follows the FacePalm messaging that appears to be ongoing on this subject.

Whoever the author is, these accusations have been dogging Dr. McStinksion for years, since I first heard of them more than 2 years ago.  Why they are surfacing now for a wider audience to read about is an open question.  There isn't much to be gained here in these revelations even if they are true, although unethical there is no criminal behavior I can discern.  Guy does make a lot of enemies because of his message, and when Feminists get on your case for being in some way abusive to women they can become quite annoying and tenacious.  You can't Mansplain anything to them at this point and they just rant at you. lol.

As others have said here though in this thread, this is pretty ridiculous Collapse Community Soap Opera overall, nobody has stepped forward to actually accuse Guy of physical rape or anything like that.  He basically has NTHE Groupies who are often depressed women who were part of the environmental movement from the 1970s onward.  Some of these women apparently feel betrayed by Guy in some way.  Whatever he did do, however he did abuse his position as a Grief Counselor, it has to be better specified and the offended individuals need to come forward.

RE
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: RE on August 28, 2017, 11:48:10 PM
(http://www.albertaschoolofdoggrooming.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Dog-Detective.png)

Whoa, hold up!


Quote
Cory Morningstar
8 hrs ·

I am horrified that I actually was planning to, at one point, bring two of my girls with me to see your "sanctuary" project in Belize.
...

Mcpherson has a sanctuary project in Belize or he doesn't.  If he does it is pretty strange for someone who says we are all going to cook to move down on top of the damn equator.  Not the smart place to put a sanctuary project considering his message.  Seems to me you would want young nymphs feeding you grapes in Alaska if you had an ounce of decency!

Belize has to be one of the WORST places on Earth to set up a "Sanctuary".  ::)  Exceeded perhaps only by Saudi Arabia.  If Guy actually set up a Doomstead there, he is definitely Bat Shit Crazy.

RE
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: alaskadronelife on September 02, 2017, 03:18:44 PM

Belize has to be one of the WORST places on Earth to set up a "Sanctuary".  ::)  Exceeded perhaps only by Saudi Arabia.  If Guy actually set up a Doomstead there, he is definitely Bat Shit Crazy.

RE

Depends on what the penalties are for grief counselors hooking up for a little doomsday happy time with partners, friends, sheep, or anyone else who can be talked into "loving it up" before the world ends?

His gofundme campaign, in case no one else has noticed. Stardust Sanctuary! No mention of a dungeon or anything kicky. Not so sure of what to think of the idea that children are involved.

"This private retreat center is located in the Cayo district of Western Belize. Here extreme poverty prevents many teenagers from attending high school. School in Belize is not free. As a result, children aged 13 to 17 miss out on continuing their education at a critical age."

Does anyone think they will be "taught" that they won't see their 30th birthday, and might as well live it up in the meantime under the supervision of well meaning, and very LOVING adults? This entire thing just creeps me out.

https://www.gofundme.com/4d6kr8g (https://www.gofundme.com/4d6kr8g)
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: azozeo on September 02, 2017, 03:27:28 PM
Don't forget, the dude "walked" from a cushie tenure at UofA.
What does that tell you right out of the gate. Bat shit crazy is old news RE....
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: RE on September 02, 2017, 04:21:05 PM
Don't forget, the dude "walked" from a cushie tenure at UofA.
What does that tell you right out of the gate. Bat shit crazy is old news RE....

Plus he didn't even have to work!  They weren't giving him any classes to teach!

RE
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: Randy C on September 14, 2017, 04:11:10 AM
The latest in the McP saga...

More from Palmface...courtesy again of Nicole Foss' facebook page.

"This has to be the creepiest GoFundMe page ever. McPherson, whose history as a serial sexual predator has recently been revealed by multiple women, is now threatening to sue anyone who spoke out. He's fundraising for a libel suit, even though he predicts human extinction in the short term (short term as in this month). The pic that comes up with the preview has been replaced with rows of skulls on shelves."

https://www.gofundme.com/4fbh9ns (https://www.gofundme.com/4fbh9ns)

Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: RE on September 14, 2017, 04:53:06 AM
The latest in the McP saga...

More from Palmface...courtesy again of Nicole Foss' facebook page.

"This has to be the creepiest GoFundMe page ever. McPherson, whose history as a serial sexual predator has recently been revealed by multiple women, is now threatening to sue anyone who spoke out. He's fundraising for a libel suit, even though he predicts human extinction in the short term (short term as in this month). The pic that comes up with the preview has been replaced with rows of skulls on shelves."

https://www.gofundme.com/4fbh9ns (https://www.gofundme.com/4fbh9ns)

Nice 2 C U RC.  :icon_sunny:

I wonder how much money Dr. McStinksion will raise for his lawsuit and who he is going to sue here?

RE
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: azozeo on September 14, 2017, 05:07:33 AM
The latest in the McP saga...

More from Palmface...courtesy again of Nicole Foss' facebook page.

"This has to be the creepiest GoFundMe page ever. McPherson, whose history as a serial sexual predator has recently been revealed by multiple women, is now threatening to sue anyone who spoke out. He's fundraising for a libel suit, even though he predicts human extinction in the short term (short term as in this month). The pic that comes up with the preview has been replaced with rows of skulls on shelves."

https://www.gofundme.com/4fbh9ns (https://www.gofundme.com/4fbh9ns)


2 weeks left, that's it ? Or less perhaps.
Such short notice.
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: Randy C on September 14, 2017, 11:42:08 AM
$675 at last count to sue people living in the US, Canada and Australia....

And times a wast'in  better get on that, only two weeks to go!

I don't think $70,000 would cover all that but we'll see....

:)
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: K-Dog on September 14, 2017, 01:35:09 PM
Before anyone gets sued someone has to come forward and describe his state of 'collapse' in detail first.  Did he emit copious amounts of methane gas at the magic moment?  Did you find it warming?  Inquiring minds want to know.

I think I need a go fund me page.  Maybe I could get the money back on the Mercedes repair.  I have not molested anybody so I don't need to raise money to sue anybody in defense.  I think I'll go with a simple 'help K-Dog get rich theme'.

Donate now before TEOTWAWKI.  Before it is too late!
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: azozeo on September 14, 2017, 04:15:36 PM
Before anyone gets sued someone has to come forward and describe his state of 'collapse' in detail first.  Did he emit copious amounts of methane gas at the magic moment?  Did you find it warming?  Inquiring minds want to know.

I think I need a go fund me page.  Maybe I could get the money back on the Mercedes repair.  I have not molested anybody so I don't need to raise money to sue anybody in defense.  I think I'll go with a simple 'help K-Dog get rich theme'.

Donate now before TEOTWAWKI.  Before it is too late!

Be sure to include Bit Coin. It tanked today on Chinese newz.
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: Randy C on November 19, 2017, 09:46:38 AM
More on the McP saga... posted to Facebook.

RandyC comments:
Personally, I never bought the Mark Austin story that he was an NSA contracted spy in 1995 sitting in on McP's classes.  (He also claimed to be a DHS contractor).  The NSA does signals intelligence, not HUMINT.  If Austin was real he would have been working for the FBI as the FBI was responsible for domestic collection.  Once upon a time that required a warrant.  Post 9/11 things changed and NSA started doing signals collection against US persons as most people are now aware.  It is also unlikely that Austin would have ever contacted McP if he indeed was working undercover.  That would have gotten him fired by the FBI and possibly prosecuted. 

Here is the link that will get all the text that did not copy over.  Rather disturbing in my opinion.

End of RandyC comments.

https://discardingdoom.wordpress.com/2017/11/18/walking-away-from-guy-mcpherson/ (https://discardingdoom.wordpress.com/2017/11/18/walking-away-from-guy-mcpherson/)

Skip to content

Discarding Doom

    Facebook
    LinkedIn
    Twitter
    Instagram

    Home

Walking Away from Guy McPherson
discardingdoom   Uncategorized   November 18, 2017   57 Minutes   
 Introduction

The following is written from a desire to protect the emotional and material well being and professional reputations of those who have been or would potentially be affected by the information offered here. I present my observations as fact which I would stand behind in a legal setting. Having consulted with legal counsel after being cc’d in a letter threatening a potential lawsuit at the behest of retired University of Arizona professor Guy McPherson, I feel comfortable moving forward with publishing this information. Because McPherson has repeatedly suggested pursuing legal action in the form of libel suits in regard to previous interactions with others, and has made some indications that he may pursue a lawsuit with regard to the kind of information disclosed here, I have approached this presentation primarily as a first person assessment and will make an effort to separate my direct observations from analysis, which can be freely disputed based on one’s own interpretation. As I wish to not be rhetorically overburdened by the use of such phrases as “I think,” and “I believe,” anything written here that cannot be directly observed should be viewed by the reader as conclusions which I have drawn, and thus should be weighed against the information provided.

Nothing that I have seen indicates that what Guy McPherson has done is illegal. That does not mean that his actions have not caused harm. I believe that they have, and I will seek to demonstrate that in this piece for the sake of the well being of others. I have provided links to the significant portions of quoted text so that the reader will be able to ascertain the full context of these passages. In the event that these quoted pages are removed from the web for whatever reason, I have taken screen shots for the purposes of more enduring documentation. In the unlikely event that McPherson’s actions result in the removal of this page, I have taken steps to ensure that the information will remain accessible to others.

I also believe there is potential for people who have developed emotional ties to Guy McPherson to be upset by what has thus far been brought to light, and what I will be discussing in the following piece. If anyone finds anything said here to be sufficiently upsetting, I would urge you to seek out professional support in your community. Everyone has a right to be heard, to lead safe, fulfilled lives without fear of harm, while those who do cause harm should be prevented from continuing in that manner.

Finally, I anticipate the possibility that the creation of this piece will draw negative attention, in addition to alerting others to potential harm. Any harassment, online or otherwise, done in person or through assumed online handles, will be documented and noted here.

Warning: The following piece contains language of a sexually graphic nature.

 
Part I

For a time I followed the work of retired University of Arizona professor Guy McPherson through his Nature Bats Last (NBL) website and through online Facebook discussion, particularly through the Near Term Human Extinction (NTHE) community that his work had helped to establish. I found his arguments for the case of impending human extinction compelling and important, and though I did not like the prognosis he provided, in many ways it presented a logical conclusion to the kind of thinking I had been engaged in for several years. The authority with which he seemed to speak on the subject made it easier for me to contemplate the possibility of extinction in what I understood to be the framework of valid climate science. While I was a bit disconcerted that he would confidently proclaim the likely end of human life on a decadal time scale, as I felt it problematic to describe the collective finality of a highly adaptable species in this short of a time frame with such probability, I none the less appreciated his overall line of thinking.

I began to have serious doubts, however, about McPherson’s credibility after a 2015 interview he conducted with self described Homeland Security government contractor Mark Austin on his Nature Bats Last podcast.  Austin’s rambling and discontinuous delivery sounded in no way believable when he suggested in an almost stream of consciousness delivery that the governments of the world had a global mass depopulation plan using biological weapons that they would deploy in a time of chaos. I posted my critical reaction to the interview on one of the Facebook forums associated with McPherson’s work, and though I received some agreement, many members in fact embraced the content of the interview wholeheartedly. At that point I began to wonder about the ability of this group to truly think critically about presented information, but more importantly, I began to have strong doubts about McPherson’s self professed interest in presenting the truth.

In a follow up podcast, McPherson discussed reactions to the popular Austin interview.  While he left open the possibility that Austin’s information was untrue, that possibility was framed as being the result of a potential disinformation campaign waged against him by powerful interests, rather than the likely potential that Austin was simply not a credible informant, lacking in the security clearances or employment required to have knowledge of a supposed mass depopulation plan. (That notion of a kind of covert government plot of persecution directed against McPherson, which I will call the “Deep State” narrative, should be noted, as it will come up again later.) In fact, a sizable portion of the follow up commentary consisted of McPherson providing cover for why we could plausibly believe Austin. While attributing Austin’s vocal delivery to potential nervousness and the import of his information, McPherson declared at around 25:50

    “[Mark Austin] was at the same level of government as Edward Snowden. They’re both government contractors contracted by an agency in the US federal government. Umm, we don’t…almost all the information Mark Austin presented can be easily fact checked with publicly available information. So it, its not as if there are [pause] unknowns regarding the United States and its biowarfare program, although they couch it as, couch it as an experimental program, and every time they kill people in this country or beyond they call it an experiment, rather than a project. Umm so there are things we don’t know, obviously, and that’s what we are trying to get to is those unknowns for us. Were we completely successful? No. But there are people who are umm afraid for their lives and for the lives of their family members as the result of last week’s show. I think maybe we touched a nerve.”

The idea that someone on par with Edward Snowden, who possessed top secret security clearances and became a household name for the import of his disclosures, would be appearing on the small time NBL podcast to disclose this kind of explosive, high level genocidal plot, seemed to me improbable to the point of absurdity. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, not because the revelations were shocking or because I am naive to actual genocidal government actions, but because the entire story, its delivery, and the setting for its revelation seemed so ridiculous. For a retired academic who claims to be “evidence based” I found the multi episode platform that was given to Austin to be well beyond disappointing, and the often unquestioningly supportive comments left in response to those podcasts should be evidence for why the interview and its follow up needed a strong rebuttal. The whole situation led me personally to question both McPherson’s integrity and his motives.

Upon further investigation, I found that Mark Austin, who interacts online within the associated Nature Bats Last community, had posted a string of bizarre comments on various NBL blog posts, suggesting to me that his scattered train of thought and unbelievable claims were not purely the result of nervousness, as McPherson had suggested. A segment of one such post can be seen below.

    “…Geniux RX, Blue Brain digital waves for instant mind change. Heck yeah, we are the real Sci “aliens” here developing the DARPA neural network. On the edge of extinction we can try everything …. especially if it might blast half of the disconnected leaders into rapid nuclear plant decommissioning. Hundreds of doctors for nuclear responsibility do care about leaving Earth with less radiation. It only takes a few hundred with the right technology to alter the path of billions. None of us or what we do counts. It’s about the future for OTHER SPECIES in the slightly bigger picture. Our electro synesthetic tissue is on all national news channels as I type. But the methane spike – not even Porter Ranch problems are on TV for a reason. Everything is already under media manipulation. Bluetooth BLUE BEAM will just do it a lot faster than messy biowar.”

Austin’s comments also provided further fodder for the above mentioned “Deep State” narrative. In early April of 2016, he says the following:

    “http://www.Homeland security news wire.com
    NSA authors of the NBL group study suggest that we are facing an increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters as a consequence of climate change. “We believe that this is going to cause even more natural disasters and, therefore, the use of social networks will allow us to obtain useful supplementary information,” points out Professor Esteban Moro, who is currently working on further research monitoring Guy R. McPherson and other groups. “We are trying to see if there is a relationship between activity on social networks and climate change which will affect us in the future”.
    — Read more in Y. Kryvasheyeu et al., “Rapid assessment of disaster awareness using social media activity,”
    HOMELAND Security monitoring.”

In a second post Austin writes, in reference to a report issued from the Senate Armed Service Committee:

    “…The report, though long, is an easy read, and it’s always worthwhile to understand what issues are motivating the government’s actions. GUY & MO have my real ID info. I did try to explain months ago the effects of CRISPR & WMD biogenetic advancements. Asymmetrical Bio war on schedule for potential induced pandemics by June 6 2016”

Incredibly, Austin is not only rehashing his wild claim to privileged knowledge of an extermination plot which was to be potentially unleashed in June of 2016, but he also claims that the NSA is monitoring McPherson and has authored studies about his Nature Bats Last group. He then goes on to cite one such study, “Rapid assessment of disaster awareness using social media activity.” If one performs a Google search for this study, predictably nothing comes up. However, with another cursory online search, a paper entitled “Rapid assessment of disaster damage using social media activity” (emphasis mine) appears in the search results, authored by the very Y. Kryvasheyeu mentioned by Austin above. Obviously the genuine paper covers material that has nothing to do with Austin’s assertions of NSA monitoring. What I believe most intellectually trained or critically thinking people would have recognized as baseless claims in Austin’s NBL interview now appears to be part of a larger pattern of dishonesty, easily uncovered with basic level internet searches that any second rate academic would have noticed.

One could perhaps make arguments that support the claim that McPherson was simply duped by Mark Austin, but I personally find that conclusion to be unlikely. My own assessment is that McPherson is better educated, more composed, methodical, and intelligent than Austin, and being trained in the scientific method, would not be easily fooled by Austin’s transparent claims. The initial interview should have been an obvious red flag for any critical thinker, let alone a former tenured academic in the scientific field. To ask pointed, illuminating questions that actually push for truth, rather than engaging in a few off handed and empty rhetorical flourishes in the initial interview as well as the follow up, would be basic practice for any ethical broadcaster of information, if a podcast entertaining the possibility of such absurd claims could be ethically made by an academic at all.

Actual questioning is done to preserve both one‘s own journalistic integrity and also the audience’s understanding of reality. McPherson has created an image for himself as being an “evidence based” truth teller, and yet, as mentioned above, after his offhanded and in my view highly implausible alternative explanation that Austin could be part of a potential disinformation campaign launched to discredit him, McPherson primarily provides a sense of plausibility to Austin’s story in the follow up podcast, rather than credibly challenging it. Furthermore, McPherson himself is active on his own NBL website (https://guymcpherson.com (https://guymcpherson.com)) in the same comment section in which Austin indicated this ongoing NSA surveillance.  In the comment section, one can find McPherson defending himself against several individuals who claim that he has made specific predictions for the end of humanity, and that, according to those arguing with him in the thread, he has subsequently backpedaled from those predictions while saying he never specifically made them.

In another one of McPherson’s blog posts, several posters argue with the moderator, mo, that Mark Austin is actually a con artist trying to sell a health product called Geniux RX (referenced in one of Austin’s quotes above), a claim mo disputes as libel.  mo goes on to say “…the specific Mark Austin who posts here does have a reputation, and is known in person by several people who also post here or in other places associated with NBL. that is the actual person you have to responsibly provide information about to back up any claims you are making.”  This indicates a personal familiarity within the community that goes beyond purely online relationships, and also demonstrates a willingness to defend Austin’s reputation, in spite of his unbelievable claims. To further substantiate the standing Austin held within the community, in another NBL comment section someone asks McPherson what Mark Austin’s handle is, to which McPherson himself replies, “ greg, Mark Austin’s handle here is Mark Austin.”  Just three posts down from McPherson’s reference to Austin’s online identity, Austin writes,

    “(I sit quietly for hours doing COMPUTER CODING & CONTRACT WORK from the funding provided we provided to them from DARPA & NIH. Reading and SLOWLY scanning codes actually takes less effort than trying to write a perfectly composed comment!) ho ho ho.”

In another NBL post, the moderator mo says “hey Mark ~ just deleted a blank post from you. let me know if you were trying post something that didn’t go through.
cheers.~ mo”

Since his appearance on the program, Austin has contributed numerous posts in McPherson’s moderated blog comment sections, at least one of which continued the claim that he made during the NBL interview podcast, that he was actually a former student of McPherson’s at the University of Arizona, which McPherson did not dispute. In the post he states:

    “…Delusion??? Maybe some form of mental energy will transform with insights. Learning from greedy mistakes. Basic sustainability common sense Dr. Guy Mc Pherson tried to teach us at UofA decades ago.”

As late as June 23rd, 2016, one of the last Nature Bats Last blog posts that allows for comments, Mark Austin suggests that he has direct contact with high level government officials like John McCain. The moderator, mo follows up with:

    “mod note from mo

    I asked Mark to back up the claimed quotes here with a clarification that all quotes here are accurate and given by permission, and this is what he said below (“His” refers to McCain)

    “Yes full permission. Exactly the same as any news reporter. His quote is for NBL news. You can call his office also but due to my family connection and knowing exactly how to get thru I manage okay. I also rarely do it and never abuse the privilege. Also because it is “me” the NSA will ‘scan’ read my comment. So will the CIA. I will happily provide you the link to the public of how and why the CIA checks all facts when they are mentioned. http://www.CIA.gov (http://www.CIA.gov) if you don’t have sign in code to that part I will go in and find it tomorrow.”

Taken together this material suggests that the Mark Austin interviewed on the podcast program is the same Mark Austin commenting on the blog, and it demonstrates a level of familiarity and engagement that would make it difficult for me to believe that McPherson was unaware of the continuing bizarre commentary made by Austin, beyond that which McPherson willingly entertained and bolstered on his pod cast program. And yet, from the very first interview, through the follow up pod cast, to the blog comments, Austin’s transparently false narrative was allowed to continue to fool others by someone who claims to elevate truth, excellence, and “evidence based” reporting.

What made all of this for me decidedly indicative of dishonest and manipulative behavior on both the part of Mark Austin and particularly McPherson is a December 2016 Nature Bats Last post in which McPherson entertains a series of emails sent by Austin which leads him to publicly state that Austin is potentially a government spy sent to watch him. On his blog, McPherson states:

    “The spy who claims to love me, who uses the cover Mark Austin, wrote to my friend and host Kevin Hester on 19 December 2016: “THANK you for hosting Guy McPherson I’m afraid the NSA is about to get much tougher on him and a list of others as Trump & Rex Tillerson have asked for specifics. Sorry. I’m only the messenger.”

    Of course, we don’t know when or if “Mark Austin” is telling the truth. He claims to be a spy, and he has presented credentials sufficient to convince me. If he’s not a spy, he’s lying. If he is a spy, he’s paid to lie. If he is a spy, we don’t know at what junctures he is lying. And there’s also the issue of how much power the president has at his disposal.”

In my opinion, McPherson’s suggestive and leading commentary is not something anyone who has any desire to adhere to professional standards, clarity of communication, or ethical behavior would give. While it is true that governments lie, conspire, and commit the most despicable acts, in this post-truth age of “fake news” and “crisis actor” populated mass shootings at every turn, there are those who are easily misled into believing fanciful stories, and those who intentionally manipulate others into believing them. I consider McPherson to be the latter.

The obviously false claims of Austin being a spy can clearly be seen for the lies that they are for several reasons. Anyone who doesn’t need further convincing on this matter can save time and skip the following points.

    There is no logic to the supposed depopulation plan.  As the current world powers rely on a massive, exploited population to provide them with the complex, interconnected system from which they primarily benefit, the claim that world governments, have a program to exterminate much of the global population during a time of crisis, starting with the United States is absurd.  Exterminating en masse the global population that provides labor for the complex industrial system is like cutting off one’s own legs.  Survival cannot be maintained by today’s modern global elites absent an industrial base, and eliminating the workforce only speeds that demise.  If the hypothetical crisis is significantly catastrophic, and the industrial base is already in the process of free fall, no depopulation plan would be sufficient to preserve the lives of the elites in the midst of that failing system.  It simply makes no sense.
    Austin does not act in a manner suggestive of membership in the intelligence community.  Austin’s bizarre commentary and claims to work for a variety of government departments are not in keeping with the activities of  professional spies, which do not openly post about their activities on blog forums, but instead maintain a low profile.  Blowing the cover of a spy is a crime in the United States.  Releasing sensitive or classified information results in investigations, terminations of employment, and imprisonment.
    NBL is not the forum for serious information leaks.  If a global depopulation plan did exist, it would not be leaked on a small time program like the NBL podcast.  Snowden’s publications were properly vetted as media outlets need to maintain a certain degree of believability, especially in such sensitive matters, and those documents were filtered through major networks like the Guardian because whistleblowers seek maximum impact and therefore go to lawmakers, legal representatives, or publishers of significance.  No major news network would take Austin seriously, not because of the fact that networks undeniably have vested interests, but because Austin simply is not a believable individual, posting lies and nonsense online, and would not stand up to vetting.

 

To suggest, then, that Austin’s claims are even remotely plausible as McPherson does, I find to be absolutely absurd, dishonest, and unethical, and I would wager that McPherson’s intent in entertaining these narratives was at least in part to manipulate the beliefs of those who actually could  find such suggestions possible.  In a way, I find it to be insulting that I would even have to waste my time articulating how absurd all of this is, in what amounts to the kind of diatribe I would ascribe to little more than obsessed, self absorbed internet trolls. I would not be wasting my own time, and therefore personal resources, on this issue, if it were not for both threats of litigation as well as what I believe to be actual emotional harm that has been done, and could be done in the future.

Furthermore, in the same blog post entitled “Achieving Peace” McPherson goes so far as to claim that he had been under government surveillance for a decade. He says, “Considerable supporting evidence, albeit heavily redacted, indicates I’d been surveilled since 1996. I had an NSA-contracted spy in my classrooms in 2005.” I would like to see how a courtroom views his considerable supporting evidence. Perhaps if he wastes more time and resources, moving forward with his libel lawsuit(s), he will give everyone the opportunity to better understand those claims, among others, during cross examination.

If one is to read the comments of Mark Austin, the supposed spy does indicate a kind of respect for McPherson. He wishes McPherson a happy birthday. He tells McPherson he is loved, and appears to be, at least on the surface, concerned for his safety. In his initial interview with McPherson on the NBL podcast, he indicates that he closely follows McPherson’s work. He tells McPherson that he essentially wanted to bring something new to the table that hadn’t been covered, when he broaches the subject of bio-warfare. To me, all of this indicates a desire to be seen as helpful or useful, and is suggestive of a need for approval. In my view, given McPherson’s willingness to further Austin’s outlandish and misleading tales for approximately a year through his multimedia platform, and given the nature of McPherson’s relations with others which I will address further below, I wonder to what extent Mark Austin might have been manipulated in all of this as well. Is it possible that by having McPherson’s assistance in maintaining this unsupportable narrative for the course of a year, Austin gained a sense of respect, mystique, belonging, or notoriety within the NTHE and NBL communities, having been given the forum to pose as a spy? Regardless of that possibility, it was a deceptively crafted role which I maintain simultaneously helped provide McPherson with a source of admiration, an aura of elevated importance to those who would believe the concoction, and provide further cover in the form of a narrative adopted by McPherson’s defenders who now claim that the “Deep State” is trying to take him down. These are all potentials for the reader to decide. I certainly have drawn my conclusions.

I’m not sure what Mark Austin’s mental and emotional state are, but I hope that he is capable of recognizing his own value as a human being independent of the NBL community, and get the support I believe he likely needs to create a healthier life for himself. I would not be in the least surprised if McPherson created some new narrative, suggesting that he was being stalked by Austin, and that he feared for his safety all along, and therefore was forced to play along with Austin’s claims. For reasons I won’t go into here, I would not in the least find such an argument convincing, were it to be made, and though the possibility of this occurrence is of course speculation, I put it out there because based on my observations, I feel a sense of genuine concern for the mental health of people who would develop these types of ongoing relationships, and a need to preempt any more obscurations which may come from McPherson.

Moving forward, some other questions that emerge from the above information for me are: what should we make of a retired academic scientist who believes humans will likely be extinct in a few decades or less, and who then has used his multimedia platform to advance the kind of information described above? Should we trust the word of Guy McPherson? Is it reasonable to doubt, and to publicly express that doubt, about his motives, character, and authenticity?

 
Part II

In 2017, McPherson expressed his desire to sue climate scientist Michael Mann for libel.  In a blog post entitled Oh Mann he stated:

    “The short, libelous piece of unintentional comedy by Mann and crew includes the following paragraph from the Post, a leading mouthpiece of American Empire:

    “Some of the more egregious examples can be found among fringe characters such as ecologist Guy McPherson —- a doomist cult hero who insists that exponential climate change likely will render human beings and all other species extinct within 10 years.”

    There are several errors in this one-sentence paragraph. I’ll focus upon three of the errors. Firstly, I’m hardly a fringe character. I’ve attracted the attention of most of the world’s climate scientists, the New York Times, and hundreds of other media outlets. Secondly, I’m not a doomist cult hero. Rather, and quite importantly considering the context, I’m a doomist cult superhero. Thirdly, Mann is lying: I’ve neither said nor written, “that exponential climate change likely will render human beings and all other species extinct within 10 years.” Not surprisingly for a man of his enormous –and seemingly unrecognized — privilege, Mann fails to distinguish between human life and all life on Earth. He repeats the libelous statement in an interview with The Real News Network.

    Had I sufficient money and time, I would sue Mann and his co-authors for libel. I don’t have the imperialist deep pockets of Pennsylvania State University, much less a leading newspaper of record for the corrupt American press. As a result, the Washington Post and its writers are off the hook, as is often the case. I contacted the ACLU and other groups to request pro bono support. Alas, there’s little interest and no money in extinction.”

Ironically, according to Scott Johnson, scientific writer and contributor to Ars Technica, McPherson has repeatedly misrepresented the science and the words of others, which Johnson documented in the Errata section of a 2014 post “How Guy McPherson Gets it Wrong.”  After an interview with Johnson on Radio Ecoshock,  McPherson also apparently threatened a potential libel suit against the host Alex Smith, who reported on his blog:

    “In an email Guy McPherson claims I am encouraging negative comments about him. I am not encouraging such comments and need to insist we stick to publicly provably facts in posts here.

    Not unrelated, Guy also tells me he is consulting a lawyer about this blog. He demands that I remove posts which ‘slander’ or ‘libel’ him.”

All of this is important context moving into understanding relationships McPherson has apparently engaged in with several women, which they have reported to have been at times deceptive and emotionally destructive.  I, and many others, happen to believe them. In late August 2017 information surfaced in regard to an online relationship between McPherson and a twenty five year old woman who, in a professed state of emotional vulnerability, had in her words, sought McPherson out as a kind of mentor. The online relationship they established was perfectly legal and consensual, but the nature of the relationship, revealed in widely shared screen shots and commentary posted by this young woman as well as in McPherson’s own responses to these screenshots, demonstrated that McPherson, in presenting a false image of being opposed to patriarchy and misogyny, was perfectly willing to participate in fantasies of a degrading and dominating nature toward women.

With regard to the August 2017 revelations, the argument has been made that these screenshots could have been faked, that their content was not objectionable, or that they were taken out of context. From a related perspective, it is suggested that these revelations are insignificant given the vast social and ecological problems we collectively face, and that we should not be distracted by what should be considered a private matter. This is a case of “killing the messenger,” they say.  Taking that last argument to the extreme, it has been suggested that this has been an attempt by  actors within the “Deep State” used to discredit McPherson. I find none of those arguments convincing and I will address them here. It is my hope to further flesh out, given the numerous observations I have laid out above, why I further believe Guy McPherson is someone who cannot be trusted, and why I believe no competent lawyer wishing to protect their own reputation, or at the very least not have their time wasted, would take on a libel case on his behalf.

The August 2017 screenshots that blew the lid on McPherson’s behavior were taken down shortly after they were posted on Facebook. Because of the pubic nature of that post and the capabilities afforded by social media, it was downloaded at will, to surface again and circulate within various circles of individuals. At this point, the knowledge of this post and others like it is indeed understood to some extent among those who were immediately connected to McPherson through social media, and McPherson‘s own response serves to confirm their existence. The following images were the ones that were posted, along with a screenshot of McPherson’s immediate social media response.

Guy McPherson I copy

 

 

Guy McPherson III copy

Guy McPherson II copy

Guy McPherson Mysoginst Statement

These screen shots (followed by McPherson’s initial Facebook response to them) represent only a small portion of a much larger exchange between these two individuals, a volume of such extent that it would be difficult for one individual to falsify them in their entirety. McPherson contends that this larger body, which he possesses but has yet to release, places the exchange from the screen shots provided in their proper context. In a recent vitriolic NBL blog post which can be read in full here, in which the reader will note McPherson repeatedly uses language geared toward the evasion of responsibility for a variety of his actions, he says the following:

    “A recent example of judgment, gossip, rumor, and innuendo involved Serena Marie Raphael McPherson, who is quite a clever piece of work. She asked me to participate in her online kink fantasies, including BDSM and a Shibari video of her. She even shared how to experience a “safe” rape fantasy. I was unaware of Shibari or rape fantasy until Serena introduced these concepts to me.

    In other words, Serena taught me some serious kink. Then she began kink-shaming me. Not surprisingly, her lies have been accepted without question by the majority. As an example of her cleverness, college dropout Serena apparently broke no laws in orchestrating this character assassination”

Obviously the swipe McPherson took with regard to her college performance has no bearing on the moral and ethical issues at hand, but its insertion is a good indicator of the way McPherson values others and the inappropriate and irrelevant manner in which he attempts to discredit her.  I have spoken with a third party who possesses the entire content of these dialogues in question, and based on the discussions we had, the idea that McPherson was an innocent and hapless man simply lured into participating in these types of fantasies in my view is a distortion of the truth. More importantly though, my view has always been that the “consensual nature” of the exchange was never the issue. Rather, what I find deeply objectionable is the content of rape, combined with the fact he has taken on a role of prominence and leadership in part defining himself as a critic of patriarchy, misogyny, hierarchy, and the dominant culture of empire, which made his decision to participate in these objectifying fantasies of rape and enslavement suggestive of public dishonesty.  Having criticized misogyny, patriarchy, and hierarchy, his engagement in this type of fantasy, regardless of how it was initiated, is like a prominent white individual viewed as an ally in the black liberation movement who in his private life engages in fantasies of enslaving black people with an emotionally traumatized but willing black person. There is nothing illegal about the act, but should such behavior come to light, the surrounding community would rightly be outraged. Or would they instead blame the “clever” black person for setting a trap?

Through social media, I have also encountered other women who have stated that they knew of one or several emotionally harmful, deceptive, or emotionally inappropriate relationships McPherson has engaged in over the course of several years, giving credence to my belief that this goes beyond simply a casual exchange over the internet. Here are some of multiple communications regarding these relationships, that have been shared through social media by people I have since corresponded with directly.

One woman, who has chosen to remain anonymous shared the following statement:

    “I think it was in 2012 that I first learned about Guy and his work. I wrote to him to thank him for his what he was doing. He responded and was very warm. He invited me to a talk he was giving in a sort of nearby town. He wanted to meet, alone, or with some others, at a restaurant. I chose to meet with others. He stayed near me all evening, even though Sheila was there. We all went back to our homes, and nothing had transpired. I will say he pursued and pursued. He kept at it insisting that we Skype and chat often. He always had a reason. He was trying hard to seduce me, and I fought him off. I knew he was married. He tells you that his marriage is sad, loveless, sexless and has been for years. …That they are divorcing soon. He was not going to take no for an answer. He wore me down, what can I say. I gave in…eventually. I was hooked…bad.
    We were Skyping, chatting, writing, all of the time. He eventually wanted me to come to New Mexico. He had to see me. I wanted to see him badly. It got more and more intense…lots of sexting too. I was just about to go see him Then…out of the blue…he dropped me. No, we never got physical in real life, but I was devastated. I had believed we were in love. I was destroyed. My guts torn out. But…I was still a doomer! (dumb lol) I left my job, left my apartment home…and hit the road to become a “woofer”. Why, I do not know! Maybe I thought it would still make me feel close to him. I was so messed up. I still believed in his work! (yikes…)
    But…When I was woofing I was chatting with some other doomer ladies. We became fast friends. We spent time chatting, about life, about doomer stuff…about Guy. One day we were talking and it hit us…we realized we had all been involved with Guy…at the same time! I don’t remember how it came out. One woman had planned on ending her marriage..for Guy. She had been dropped too, after being physically involved with him. She became so destroyed that she was suicidal because of it. The other woman had her personal photos and communications shared by Guy, with another woman he was seeing. She was dropped also, and totally devastated…not to mention humiliated by his sharing her private stuff. I don’t recall if they were physical. …We knew of others too.
    By the way, there was nothing about money going on…yet. Not like I have seen from what you all have said. Not that I knew of anyway…
    It was all so awful. We decided to try and tell others. We wrote to Carolyn Baker, who basically told us to shut up and leave him alone. I don’t think much of her. She shared our letter with Mike Ruppert and with Guy..!!! Wow thanks a lot Carolyn!…not very ethical.
    When I and these ladies were chatting, we were comparing notes to see when and what happened. He was involved with us back when he was writing a poem about “Being n Love…with the Earth” or some such crap. We all knew about the poem and realized he had posted it knowing that we were each in the wings. He knew we would all be wondering if the poem was about us. …and yes, we did! When we “saw” this…we realized how devious he is, and that his work is all meant to manipulate women in the wings. He had told us all privately that he didn’t really care about nature nor the planet. He does that to dare you to say anything. It’s all so twisted and sick.
    I am , and was, so embarrassed to have fallen for him. I didn’t think I would ever have to deal with him again…and here I am. It’s “up” again. I’m okay, and glad though because I see how it has brought me to where I am. It helps me be clearer now, and to see what I still want to work on with myself. I can only hope that people just get away from him…and the whole “doomer” thing. I hope this story helps.
    I am very sorry more women got hurt. We tried to stop him. I am very relieved that some are starting to see through his game. I will answer questions…and move on again.”

(Carolyn Baker, a former McPherson associate and coauthor of a book with McPherson, has since written  about her experience in relation to him, and in so doing has also incurred his ire. She wrote “ I have been deceived, and I have defended betrayers in the name of “having faith in humanity” or “wanting to believe the best about a person.” To anyone who has been harmed by my shadow denial, I sincerely apologize.”)

Another woman has made repeated online statements in regard to McPherson’s behavior for which she has appeared to have been largely ignored, said simply, “I have known about this despicable behaviour for several years, since I know a number of his victims personally.”

I have also spoken with a mental health professional who worked with a client in a therapeutic setting who, according to this individual, had been in a relationship with McPherson.  According to this professional, the client had been personally traumatized by the relationship, and was not wanting to come forward at this time.

Women should always be taken seriously when they report inappropriate behavior, and taken together, I find it highly improbable that multiple individuals who have not met, some of whom once had high regard for McPherson, would be fabricating these kinds of stories, especially given the nature of McPherson‘s interactions with Mark Austin. As we have become aware over the years of various high profile sex scandals, however, perpetrators are often believed over the cries of a string of victims, and the communities often remain silently tolerant of the abuse, or rush to defend the abuser. Again, this is not to imply that McPherson’s actions in this case were illegal, but according to those who have recounted them and from behavior I have personally observed, they were in keeping with the emotionally destructive, dishonest, manipulative framework of the patriarchal culture that McPherson disingenuously critiqued, and of which I believe he ultimately perpetuated.

As was pointed out in the Wrong Kind of Green (WKOG) statement, McPherson advertised on his page that, having recognized the despair his message of an impending extinction level event would cause, he became a certified “grief specialist.” In one post McPherson states:

    “Despair is a typical and expected reaction to my presentations, and I would have it no other way. If the truth causes despair, then bring on the truth. I’ve been despairing for years. It hurts. But avoiding our emotions makes us less human, hence degrades our humanity. I want no part of that. I want to feel, even when it hurts. Until I can’t.”

This means that McPherson, through his online and speaking tour platforms, created both the mechanisms for further isolating individuals intellectually from society and simultaneously inducing significant emotional distress in those concerned with climate change, while also promoting himself as someone professionally qualified to act in some capacity of emotional assistance for grief. The period of time required for McPherson to gain this certification through The Grief Recovery Institute appears to have been less than a week of training, hardly enough time to qualify one to be capable of adequately tending to the emotional needs of others. But this level of training, if unknown to others, none the less creates an image of respectability and authority, which is amplified by academic achievements and the surrounding intellectual, moral, and sometimes financial support of an often unquestioning community. This combined role of “the world’s leading authority on abrupt climate change,” grief inducer, and grief specialist, in my view fleshed out the potential for a toxic emotional, intellectual, and social dynamic which played out in the recounted experience of the aforementioned individual who came forward in August.

The content of the particular exchange demonstrates McPherson’s willingness to participate in fantasies that are deeply degrading to women, which, combined with the information shared by other women, is one major component of multiple concerns I have with regard to McPherson, a concern also shared by others. But to take this in another direction, McPherson created a dilemma for himself and for the so called “doomer community” and those others with whom he associated, with regard to his behavior from his uniquely crafted role.

What many have failed to see in their continued support for McPherson is that this role he created has brought into question both the motives and methodology which he has employed to strongly suggest impending human extinction will likely occur in a few decades or less. Regardless of what he claims the scientific evidence says (and there is also credible reason to doubt those claims), and regardless of what his followers believe to be true about human extinction, there is the very strong potential that others who are first introduced to McPherson’s disputed conclusions  and who become aware of his activities in question here, could justifiably conclude that the ever shortening timeline for human extinction that he provided was arrived at not through rigorous scientific inquiry. Instead, they might reasonably conclude, as I and others have, that McPherson was motivated at least in part by the intention to utilize a controversial and frightening narrative which set him apart from others to draw in people concerned about their future and the environment, to convince them to set aside hope and the bondage of social norms in the anticipation of impending demise, and then use that state of extreme emotional susceptibility to facilitate emotionally predatory relationships within the small, intellectually isolated, and globally dispersed audience he has cultivated. Of course it is possible to dispute this line of thinking, and I’m certain McPherson would present his own account, but the reality is that the relationships multiple individuals described above, I believe do create the possibility for such shade to be cast.

This is an additional reason as to why ethical boundaries are needed if one is to maintain credibility. While many of McPherson’s supporters seem unwilling or unable to confront the most significant issue at hand, the emotional well being of several women in question, it would seem that at the very least the potential damage he has done to the credibility and public image of his message and those who associate with him would be enough to strongly indicate among his supporters the need for a leader that exhibits strong ethical boundaries and the engagement in behavior consistent with public presentation. The very fragmentation of the Near Term Human Extinction and Nature Bats Last groups and any diminishment of his credibility within those circles are the predictable result of what I and others have concluded to be inappropriate behavior, of which is he bears responsibility, but for which he thus far has been unwilling to apologize. This inappropriateness is twofold. Firstly it is the actual content, which those who understand the repression of women found to be highly objectionable, regardless of how it was initiated. But secondly, and for those who are not disturbed by the content, it is the fact that his interactions contradicted the pubic image that he created for himself, an image which helped to constitute his community of moral, intellectual, and material supporters.

In an ill willed and flimsy rebuttal piece entitled “All’s Fair…?”  McPherson suggests that in fact there was no “community,” in which he took part. He wrote “Unencumbered by principles, Sliwa claims I have power over Serena, and by extension everyone else in the (nonexistent) near-term human extinction ‘community.’” This I believe is an extremely important sentiment for getting insight into McPherson’s dishonest way of thinking, living, and communicating, and provides a window into the way he attempts to avoid responsibility.  McPherson is someone who for years has hosted his online blog and radio show about near term human extinction and abrupt climate change, a role in which he credited himself as being a “foremost expert.” This suggests not only self acknowledged prominence, but a sense of a unique and special role at the top of a pyramid of experts, and a central role in the message of near term human extinction. His podcast was at times a call in show in which people could speak directly to McPherson and ask questions. They indeed sought him out as an expert, and someone they looked up to and could trust. McPherson doggedly defended that role as someone who has been misunderstood, but who ultimately held a unique angle on the truth. His “truth”, however, was not simply wed to cold science, but also ranged into the emotional sentiment that “on the edge of extinction, only love remains,” a phrase which ironically discards the central relevance of science once the conclusion is reached that we are doomed no matter what we know or believe. In such a way, his words suggested that resting on his scientific conclusions, in the end, his message was ultimately about the connection between others, a connection based ideally on love and the pursuit of excellence, which naturally created the sense that community is what is ultimately important in this supposed end time. Moving from this platform, he regularly traveled and stayed with others at their homes, recruiting them to bring him into their home communities. He spoke highly of community when living in the “mud hut,” in posts like What works: community, where he lived in close proximity with his NBL podcast co-host Mike Sliwa, before then discarding the community there to move to Belize. Because of multiple related posts like the aforementioned one, McPherson’s own Nature Bats Last blog features the word “community” as a somewhat significant word in the associated tag cloud. He also has an NBL classified section, in which people who have found his work regularly advertise live-in arrangements at their homestead properties in preparation for ecological collapse.  At the time of this writing, one such classified reads, “An Invitation to come and live love and pursue a life of excellence as Dr. McPherson so eloquently puts it.” McPherson even mentions in the very “All’s Fair post…?” in which he denies the existence of a NTHE community that his partner Pauline (as if he didn’t bear any responsibility in the matter) had invited Serena, who had also been a featured contributor to the NBL podcast, to live in their home in Belize. He stated ““My partner knew about every aspect of my relationship with Serena. As I’ve indicated, Pauline even invited her and her husband Shannon to move to this property in Belize.” Improvements for the Belize property, as well as monies for the lawsuit McPherson threatened, were sought out in the form of donations through crowd funding campaigns from people who had found resonance with McPherson’s teachings and liked him as a person. At this property, McPherson hosted workshops dealing with grief and other reactions of those sufficiently touched by his message of impending demise who would then travel to Belize see him. An online community sprang up in various iterations, such as the Near Term Human Extinction Support group, and the Near Term Human Extinction Love group, among others, for which his partner Pauline, according to a Vice News article, was an online moderator.  After the August revelations, the initial Nature Bats Last Facebook group was disbanded, with another to spring up with Pauline as the founder, for those who still wanted to be part of McPherson’s community.  Their group statement reads:

    The guiding principles of this group are no blame, no shame, at the edge of extinction only love remains. (Guy)

    At the desperate request of individuals who use critical-thinking skills, I (Pauline) am creating this private group for folks who want to continue sharing about our imminent demise.
    Please do not add people who have slandered, libeled or defamed Guy or anyone else for that matter.
    This is a space for adults, for joking, for crying, for sharing news, for being a tribe of the walking dead.

    Fuck the patriarchy and sex shaming. Live life fully. Love big. Be here now and all that crap.
    Most importantly, be kind to each other. Time is running out.
    And most importantly AGAIN we are LGBT etc friendly. No more shaming people. “

Not only was community demonstrably part of McPherson’s NBL platform and NTHE message, it played a critical role, with McPherson situated as the lynchpin. And this can also be observed by the emotional reactions people had toward the revelations discussed above. Both those who rejected his behavior with a sense of betrayal, and those who clung tighter to him with kind words and financial support, provided clear indications of the sense of community he had engendered.

From my perspective, McPherson was able to deny the very real community that he fostered, because while he depended upon supporters, intellectual allies, donators, attendees, moderators, cheer leaders and promoters, defenders, admirers, event and travel arrangers, hosts, audiences, blog commenters, and the like, and while he fostered live in experiences, stay overs, and workshops with people he worked and associated with, all of which fostered ongoing relationships both online and in person, I believe he ultimately only valued these people in a utilitarian sense.  While they engaged in ongoing emotional rapport with McPherson, I believe ultimately it was for the reason that they were confirming his own sense of importance and treatment as a uniquely situated, loving, misunderstood, excellence spreading individual that he valued them. If a portion of this community was somehow negatively impacted by his words or actions, which would thus disconfirm the image he sought to maintain, then in his mind, he had no such influence, the community simply didn’t exist, and those individuals were nothing more than liars jealously seeking power, perhaps even working for the Australian government. While I personally found his denial of the NTHE community to be laughable, I’m glad that he made that claim. It’s extremely revealing of how easily he misrepresents the truth and devalues others.  Perhaps those who continue to surround him will some day come to recognize just how McPherson truly understands community.  That will not happen immediately, as he will likely need to burnish his image as an empathetic, world class leader in abrupt climate change who has no power within a community that does not exist, or retreat altogether as the self proclaimed victim of power seeking slanderers.

And while those who will continue to financially or otherwise support McPherson from within his (“non existent”) community will likely see things purely from the perspective of their leader‘s reputation, they have missed altogether the perspectives of others. Primarily, they miss the perspective of those women who have been directly affected. But they also miss the perspective of those individuals and groups who have worked with or been associated with McPherson in the past. This is clearly demonstrated in the case of Deep Green Resistance, an organization that promotes radical feminism. One of DGR’s founding members Derrick Jensen interviewed McPherson on the topic of patriarchy for Resistance Radio. If DGR had not publicly denounced McPherson’s online interactions after becoming aware of them, they would have compromised their own integrity and reputation as a group that situates itself as an active ally to women and an opponent of rape culture. While those who follow McPherson can dismiss the revelations made by other women as simply taken out of context, that in no way constrains others such as DGR, who have zero tolerance for misogynistic and patriarchal language or behavior regardless of the context or its consensual nature, to share the same assessment. One could correctly suggest that DGR’s very existence is rooted in opposing such behavior, and they demonstrated this with their public statement regarding the August 2017 revelations. The very nature of DGR’s stated positions, values, and public image ethically compels them to denounce such behavior to maintain internal consistency. To not do so would morally compromise their organization in the eyes of their membership, for which they would undoubtedly suffer. Furthermore, if DGR were to simply let this behavior slide, by giving such tacit approval to McPherson, they could be inadvertently exposing other women to McPherson‘s dispositions, who might interpret DGR’s past associations as a kind of feminist seal of approval.

Importantly, this potential is another demonstration of how perceived authority can strongly influence perception and decisions, beyond the constraints of contractual agreements or money changing hands, which McPherson has suggested, in their absence, prevents abusive power dynamics from occurring. Like the exchange of money and contracts, the combination of reputation, physical symbols of success and authenticity, published materials, awards and distinctions, popularity, and intellectual authority, along with social organization and pressure, are all also socially constructed mechanisms that can convey a kind of power. McPherson admits as much in his own case when he claims to be an authority on abrupt climate change and then talks about the emotional impact his talks invariably have on others. That is actual power over the emotional lives of other human beings which he would not enjoy absent his academic credentials, his symbols of authority, and his community of support which helped provide him with a platform. Some have made drastic, life changing decisions based on their understanding of who McPherson is,  the kind of beliefs he purported to hold, the nature of the information he provided, and the level of expertise he presented himself to have possessed.  McPherson regularly critiqued other climate scientists who did not share his bleak outlook of committing “malpractice” in their climate assessments, because he knows very well that words from authorities indeed do have power, even if he wants to selectively avoid responsibility in his own case.

By contrast, DGR, with the voices of Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith, used their own socially constructed influence ethically and in a manner consistent with their stated standards of anti misogyny when they denounced McPherson‘s behavior. Mike Sliwa, a long time former friend of McPherson’s, has developed an online following through his own social critique as well, and has chosen to use his voice to speak up in this matter. Similarly, founder of the Wrong Kind of Green, an online publication that exposes various forms of social exploitation, Cory Morningstar, and long time contributor Forrest Palmer, have also collaborated closely with McPherson in the past, and sought to warn others of McPherson’s behavior. As an occasional contributor to WKOG, I also believed it was of utmost importance to denounce behavior I deemed objectionable for my own conscience, as well as the emotional well being of others.

Upon careful listening, what was interesting for me about McPherson’s Resistance Radio interview on the subject of patriarchy was that though he had appropriated that word as part of his own critique of civilization, he noticeably avoided any substantial critique of the systematic abuse of women. Even when asked pointedly at the end of the interview by Jensen about what males specifically can do to combat patriarchy, thus defining action in terms of a difference based on biological sex, McPherson simply replies that we need to talk about the issue, suggesting there is little more that can be done. McPherson has talked about patriarchy, on that radio interview and also on his blog. I observe that his use of the word is not an insignificant aside, but is characteristically deceptive. Using the highly charged word “patriarchy” itself is suggestive of a strong feminist critique of society, yet in his interview with Jensen, his definition is practically indistinct from hierarchy. On a blog post entitled Patriarchy Arises from Ownership, McPherson says “Contrary to prevailing opinion, it is not men who make up patriarchy. Not all men rule, and most men are exploited.“  I bring this to light simply because I believe that there may be a potential that he would defend his actions toward women as not being patriarchal, and therefore not in opposition to his public image, simply because he does not define patriarchy to be a term explicitly concerning the domination, exploitation, or abuse of women. Yet employing the appropriate linguistic symbology, it deceptively creates the trappings of allyship with women (and feminist leaning men), which is bolstered by other factors. One is simply appearing on a program with Derrick Jensen, whose work McPherson claims to be influenced by, discussing the word patriarchy, thus creating a layer of social and intellectual association with a self identified radical feminist. Jensen’s organization, by contrast, has this to say about patriarchy:

    “There are many branches of feminism. Radical feminism takes aim at the root cause of the crisis facing women: the system of violence that keeps people divided by sex with a dominant class (men) and an oppressed class (women). This system of violence is called patriarcy, and over the past two thousand years it has come to rule most of the world. Patriarchal civilization is based on exploiting and consuming women, living communities, and the earth itself.”

McPherson has also called out others when it comes to patriarchy as well as misogyny. In one instance he stated, “I love Abbey’s work. I doubt I would’ve loved the man, whose work hinted broadly at misogyny and patriarchy.”  Furthermore, one of the last NBL blog posts which allows comments contains the house rules for the forum, including the following:

    “1. No libel. Learn the law as needed, starting here.
    2. No attacks on classes of people, including racism, antisemitism, and misogyny.”

In a presentation given around a month and a half after the above August revelations, McPherson continued to maintain (min 15:45) that endemic misogyny is one component of the destructive culture that is destroying the planet.

All of this suggests to me that McPherson uses the language of genuine concern and empathy to create a façade which he can use to deceive others while maintaining his public image of respectability and allyship with women. Those who remain in his close community either come to understand misogyny and patriarchy from his warped perspective, or simply ignore the issue altogether.  Rather than trying to ascertain exactly what McPherson intends or implies when he uses the words misogyny or patriarchy, I would suggest that the words are not there for him to define, and that any attempt to use them to suit his own definitions or agendas, would in fact be the definition
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: John of Wallan on November 20, 2017, 01:36:00 AM
Did not realise DD had become a gossip column.
 

JOW
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: RE on November 20, 2017, 09:31:53 AM
Did not realise DD had become a gossip column.
 

JOW

Did not realize you had morphed into a trolling lurker pitching one-liners.

RE
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: Eddie on November 20, 2017, 08:26:19 PM
Did not realise DD had become a gossip column.
 

JOW

Did not realize you had morphed into a trolling lurker pitching one-liners.

RE

Seriously, the thing that's interesting about this is that it's just another case of registering mass dissatisfaction toward some powerful person (always male) taking sexual advantage  (allegedly) of a woman or woman substitute (LGBT). Punishing males who use whatever power that luck, inheritance, business acumen, ruthless ambition or fame might have conveyed to them in order to coerce women into giving it up.

In fact Guy seems to have been ahead of the curve, this having started before Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore, Al Franken, etc. The truth is that almost ALL the men in the US legislative branch have considered it a job perk to be able to grope women and make fools of themselves with impunity. Hello.

Now, I suppose they'll all be outed, one by one, or maybe in groups. Maybe they'll begin to be proactive and confess before being fingered by their former interns and aides.

All this is, is the power of mass media (including social media) used as a means of identifying the next human sacrifice to the God's of mass disapproval. To me it's nothing more than a high tech way of choosing a victim for a virtual reality public stoning. Very cathartic. Not that different than a public hanging, or perhaps throwing some Christians to the Lions in the Coliseum.

Another good reason to stay under the FB radar.

Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: Surly1 on November 21, 2017, 02:22:24 AM

Seriously, the thing that's interesting about this is that it's just another case of registering mass dissatisfaction toward some powerful person (always male) taking sexual advantage  (allegedly) of a woman or woman substitute (LGBT). Punishing males who use whatever power that luck, inheritance, business acumen, ruthless ambition or fame patriarchy might have conveyed to them in order to coerce women into giving it up.
//
Fixed that for you.

All this is, is the power of mass media (including social media) used as a means of identifying the next human sacrifice to the God's of mass disapproval. To me it's nothing more than a high tech way of choosing a victim for a virtual reality public stoning.

Political correctness is what the oppressors call it when the oppressed are sick and tired of putting up with their shit.

When my wife came of age, and nature bestowed her gifts, she became a target for molesters. Many, many women do. Most women in this culture have to field inappropriate sexual advances. Many get raped or assaulted, and have little recourse or anywhere to go.

Something has snapped in the culture. Not sure what it is. Maybe it was Anita Hill. Maybe it was Bill Clinton getting away with it. Maybe it's just time.

I do not portray myself as being beatifically above the fray. In my salad days, getting laid was my highest and best purpose, to say nothing of my life's work. Most of us have done or said inappropriate things, and I am sure I don't remember a fraction of them. But I like to think I never pressed an unfair advantage. Wouldn't be... sporting. What happened with me was raising a daughter as a single parent. Shit looks different viewed through a set of female eyes.

So if men have to be called to account for past misdeeds, so be it. But you have to admit, "virtual reality public stoning" sounds eerily evocative of Clarence Thomas' "high tech public lynching" when Anita Hill told the Long Dong Silver story.

In prepping for this morning's paper, I saw a story about how sexual abuse is widespread at Islamic schools in Pakistan, but it is seldom reported or prosecuted. One of the gifts of the world's Abrahamic religions that keep on giving is the story of Hagar, who was never asked to consent to bearing a child. She was given, because slavery. Not only the first recorded instance of surrogate motherhood, but a prime example of the upper classes exploiting those with fewer options.
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: Eddie on November 21, 2017, 05:45:01 AM
Well, in any case it shouldn't come as any surprise that this kind of boorish behavior is and has been BAU for as long as anybody alive now can remember and probably long before that.

I personally never once in my life behaved in that kind of way, possibly because I never felt like I had the kind of power over anybody that would make me assume I could get away with it. Or maybe it's because my father held my mother in such total high regard that I just wasn't raised to act like that.

Regardless, I've frequently been a witness to it, and the truth is that it has always been the norm, and not some form of aberrant behavior. In fact, our society has always winked at it, and rewarded it.

Furthermore, women, as I have observed them, are more drawn toward men who treat them like shit than men who treat them with respect. I'm not saying women haven't been victimized, but I am saying that they are often complicit.

I'm the father of three attractive women. The way my daughters were raised, there is no way any of them would have ever allowed themselves to be the victim of some powerful pervert. He'd be lucky to escape with his balls intact.
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: Eddie on November 21, 2017, 06:32:14 AM
I'm not defending the crimes, I'm just saying the RESPONSE to the crimes isn't some sudden improvement in social awareness and a longing for justice. It has much more to do with herd mentality and the madness of crowds.

I want to be clear here, because I know this is a losing POV in the current version of sexual politics. No way I can win this argument, but I want YOU to understand, because I know you're capable of telling the difference between justice, which is a good thing, and mob rule, which is where we're headed these days.
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: Surly1 on November 21, 2017, 06:53:12 AM
I'm not defending the crimes, I'm just saying the RESPONSE to the crimes isn't some sudden improvement in social awareness and a longing for justice. It has much more to do with herd mentality and the madness of crowds.

I want to be clear here, because I know this is a losing POV in the current version of sexual politics. No way I can win this argument, but I want YOU to understand, because I know you're capable of telling the difference between justice, which is a good thing, and mob rule, which is where we're headed these days.

I appreciate what you are saying. And I appreciate that you are a clearminded and decent man who doesn't just toss off an opinion to hear himself make a noise.

Likewise  I wonder, "why now?" Much as I might want to believe that the great wave of social justice has broken on history's beach, the timing in the Age of Serial Pussy-Grabbing is suspect.

All I know is that almost every woman not built like a gun safe has stories like these to recount.

How many more Charlie Roses are going to come leaking out in the headlines? It is also easy to forget that the mores of behavior were very different 40 years ago from today. There was a common level of sexual repartee in the workplace that is simply verboten in today's corporate workplace. And dating co-workers? I dated a number female co-workers over the years. If I were single, I would no sooner attempt to date a co-worker that I would attempt cliff-diving.

And what is justice in these circumstances? It's not for me to say. But it's pretty clear to me that Roy Moore is a serial creeper. How many yearbooks have you signed since high school? How many mothers did you have to ask permission to date their daughters at the age of 32? Me, neither. I hope he loses, but hey, Alabama.
Title: Re: Guy McPherson Accused of Abuse of Women in his Position as Grief Counselor
Post by: RE on November 21, 2017, 09:14:25 AM
It is also easy to forget that the mores of behavior were very different 40 years ago from today.

This is the part that bothers me.  Applying today's Fundy Christian Right Wing morality to events that happened as much as 40 years ago in some cases is just insane.  It's like somebody running for POTUS in 1980 being castigated for smoking Pot in HS the 1960s.  "I didn't inhale".  "I showed her my Johnson, but I didn't touch her with it."  lol.

Shouldn't there be some sort of statute of limitations on this?  If the behavior bothered you so much, why didn't you report it back then?  Since you didn't report it, you allowed the Perp to repeat the behavior with other women, so you are negligent.

Beyond all of that,  there are few if any charges of actual RAPE, just behaviors which while generally gross are not illegal.  But everybody now feels emboldened to pile on and destroy reputations of these perps.  They're all so brave now, "me too-ing" on Facepalm.  It's pathetic.

RE