Comments (6)

By Katie Kish, February 25, 2010 4:28 pm

I meant to write this post a loooong time ago, but I never got around to it. Emily wrote an opinion about global warming that I totally disagree with and is clearly just from lack of research on the topic. Actually, when I first read it …it was like I was reading a slightly edited version of one of the many kinds of creationists arguing against evolution. Luckily, in the mean time Ian Bushfield responded to it for me.

I am by no means a stereotypical environmentalist who knows global warming is a *serious* problem just because I want to get environmentalism into policy… But I’ve read a lot about global warming, listened to debates and done a lot of schooling around the topic … and it happens to be one of the very few areas of stereotypical environmentalism that I agree with. Here is Ian’s reply which was short, sweet and to the point.

Everything you say has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly before.

There IS a consensus among real climate scientists (notice how, like in the evolution/creation debate, engineers are the major opposition “scientists” to the established facts).

The 1970s global cooling myth is a result of a Newsweek article not a scientific journal or consensus among scientists. In fact, articles being published were 44-7 in favour of warming over cooling hypotheses.

Also, if you were concerned about the CRU hacked data, analysis of the emails results in no real “gotcha” moments, and does nothing to discredit the mountains of evidence that exist. At most the emails demonstrate that scientists remain human with all the associated flaws (jealousy, anger, frustration, etc.) that result from continued attack by self-proclaimed sceptics.

Finally, most of the “scepticism” movement is heavily funded by the oil industry similar to how the tobacco industry funded PR against the notion of cigarettes causing cancer or how evangelical religions fund PR against evolution.

2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record and despite what high school chemistry teachers believe (similar to under-trained biology teachers) we are very likely to have caused it. The greenhouse effect is real (or else the planet would be 30 C colder than it is), and putting more carbon into the atmosphere that is normally buried under ground is bound to have an effect.

Scientists do share some of the blame for bad PR and not communicating their findings properly, but nevertheless, the data is in, and it’s time for action. I really did like Jon’s piece at the National Post about why he thinks people are keen to be doubters of the science on this piece, give it a read if you haven’t yet.

There is a lot of really good and easy to understand literature out there about global warming and “Limits to Growth”… It makes economic, mathematical and logical sense that something like global warming is happening and that we need to respond to it so we can be more readily prepared for the future.

Claiming that the science is too hard to understand and therefore it is best to just be agnostic is intellectually lazy. Scientists have devoted their lives to this topic, and have come to the same consensus – global warming is happening. The scientists have done the science for you AND done a good job of framing it for people who aren’t scientists for those willing to put the effort into learning about it.

I understand that some people want to go against the grain and be a skeptic about stuff… but being a skeptic about global warming at this point…is like being a skeptic of evolution. Only skeptics of global warming are VERY dangerous and will result in a lot of possible death and suffering in the potentially near future.

Comments (30)

By Katie Kish, September 14, 2009 10:08 am

Posts are coming in from all over the place about Justin, his man blog, CFI-Canada and democracy. As per usual Zak is an asshole (he’s usually an asshole, right…but an asshole), Joe breaks it down unbiased and sensible style and Gordo makes me want to pee my pants laughing so hard but at the same time hitting the nail on the head. But then there is Ian Bushfield, who as first you want to be like “hahahaha…” but then you’re like “haha..ha….h…….a…oh, that’s not funny at all, because it’s so true.” And then there is this new site….which is starting to look pretty interesting…

As the pres of the Freethought Association of Canada I really feel like I need to just stay out of all of it. But that’s not really true Katie Kish fashion, (but keep in mind these are my opinions, NOT FAC’s!!) despite the fact that Justin himself asked me to stay out of it. I think that really goes to show how problematic this all really is.

It breaks down to two issues, in my opinion. The first is the future and sustainability of The Center For Iquiry in Canada and the second is multi-cause leadership. …So here are my unedited (its getting late in the morning and I have a class to go to) thoughts about what is going on.

Zak points out that a democracy in CFI is pretty much a delusion and says this:

“So, until more people get involved and more money can be raised, it’s likely Justin won’t be going anywhere, nor should he since we don’t yet have anyone with the experience or dedication willing to replace him.”

There are a couple problems here. The first is that Justin isn’t the only person. As someone who worked for CFI I’ve seen a lot of people come and go. People who are dedicated, who don’t mind putting hours at a time into CFI and who would gladly take Justin’s spot coordinating CFI Ontario. He isn’t irreplaceable at CFI Ontario. I think in the media, he is pretty irreplaceable, but that’s just because Im terrified of writing for things like Holy Post and going on the Michael Coren show so in my eyes, anyone that does that is amazing.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again and again and again. There are people in Toronto who want to work for CFI, if given the chance, they would apply. But this is all besides a very important point. …Justin founded CFI Ontario 3 years ago. How many consistent volunteers are there? Why hasn’t he found people that can hold up CFI as a place? 3 years of being the leading secular voice in Canada is a long time. And while I’ve seen a lot of people get involved, I’ve seen just as many who would have been firm and solid volunteers leave because of the way CFI is run. If I talk to those people and ask if it is okay to use their names I’ll do a follow up something to back this point up.

The Center for Inquiry – Ontario is not sustainable right now. There aren’t enough volunteers to do stuff (when I was working there I had to pull teeth to get 2 or 3 people show up to help me with an event.), the actual building is a mess and does NOT look like a think tank organization’s major building in Canada should…, the structure doesn’t allow for democratic processes even for the board of directors and I’ve seen unanimous decisions by the CFI general volunteers completely overturned by Justin single handedly.

So you may ask “Well, Katie, if you’re so concerned why aren’t you there being one of the pillar volunteers that you think CFI really needs to be sustainable?”… Well imaginary question asker, I’ll tell you, as this is my point number 2.

Some causes are controversial and some are not. It takes a moron to not understand why one cause might be more controversial than an other. Because of the previous issue Justin is pretty much the only face of atheism in Canada. I’ve been on a few national media outlets, but Justin has been on them all. And this is amazing. He speaks for secularists (agnostics, atheists, secular humanists, freethinkers, …) on a regular basis on national media outlets regularly. Its been amazing, he’s given a face to secularists and our efforts in Canada. He’s also founded most of the major secular players in Canada and really rallied up the Campus groups. Woohoo!

So lets google, Mr. Trottier, to see ALL of his accomplishments! …What is this? He has a personal blog?! Cool!

What? … I can’t say it better than other people have:

“words like “whiny” and “complaining” are throwbacks to old gendered stereotypes about big mouthed bitches who don’t know their place.”

“About the quote mining do I really need to point … Read moreout how intellectually dishonest it is?”

“I’m disappointed that at how ideologically driven your comments are especially considering that you are supposed to be the executive director of a secular humanist organization (CFI) that promotes critical thinking. Many of us have been having a hard time keeping CFI going in Canada in light of your misogynistic views Justin and we aren’t even the ones getting paid. I’d suggest that if this is really the path you want to follow that you do us a favour and resign for the good of the organization.”

“Justin: If people who don’t like your views are leaving, and those who find your blog and agree and then follow to CFI join, doesn’t that tend toward an ideologically narrow CFI?”

“I’m not saying he can’t speak, but as head of an organization he has to understand that his words are damaging to the reputation of that organization. So if he wants to say these things, and remain head honcho of CFI, then he’ll need to accept that many may leave.”

A letter written by a previous volunteer on June 6th 2009:

Hello all, please read below.

“Among cancers which affect both sexes, men are 60% more likely to develop the disease and 70% more likely to die from it. “we were surprised to see such consistent differences.” “Gee, now why would men think their health less valuable than women? All they see are “Women’s hospitals”, immigrant women’s health buses paid for by the government, and the highly publicly funded Women’s Health Network? Shocking!… Read more
and:
“Living in an epoch that is selfish as well as matriarchal, our lifeboats are no longer marked “women and children first,” only “women first.” We invent euphemisms, such as “choice” for killing, and sophomoric dilemmas, such as pretending not to know when life begins, to ensure that nothing hinders Virginia’s quest for Santa Claus. No obstacle must interfere with her goal of self-fulfillment — least of all an issue (as it were) of her healthy sexual appetite.
Some put the question in terms of a woman’s right toher own body. That would be valid enough in the realm of smoking, diet, liposuction or sex — but abortion? Abortion means controlling someone else… Read more’s body. Incidentally, I realize that as a man I have no authority to speak on the matter, but I’m not speaking as a man. I wouldn’t dare. I’m speaking strictly as an ex-fetus.”

Heya. The above quotes are a sample of what Justin Trottier, spokesperson for CFI Canada, and also spokesperson for http://www.equalismactivism.com/, is posting on his facebook page.

I wanted to make you all aware that someone who speaks for CFI, an organization that promotes science and reason, is also speaking publicly in support of what I consider regressive, sexist positions and policies. In addition, we skeptics continually discuss possible ways to get women more involved in the skeptical community. I’m pretty sure this … Read moreisn’t the best way to go about it. As most of you know, his outspoken positions are the primary reason why I’ve stepped away from formal association with CFI.

I support everyone’s right to free speech, and these samples are from Justin’s personal FB account, not a CFI forum. However, Equalism Activism is a public website with Justin’s picture on the home page. In an ideal world, people would be able to separate the two. It is not an ideal world. In fact, when you google Justin’s name, Equalism Activism is the second hit.

I’m not suggesting that any of you do anything about this, just that you be aware. If CFI Alberta becomes successful in its quest to be the one-stop critical thinking shop for this province, it will only be a matter of time until some intrepid reporter asks about CFI’s opinion on Justin’s positions. You should be ready for it.

In Skeptical Solidarity,

d

Aaaand more quotes:

“When people see, read, or hear about Justin, they think CFI, and vice versa. That`s basic branding. And this, then, is a PR nightmare for all of us.”

“This post illustrates exactly what’s wrong with this blog. This is a manipulative and misleading story (which isn’t surprising for the Star) which could have been exposed with about 10 minutes of research (which is how long it took me).”

“I think Justin needs to choose his cause. I agree that it is not good strategically to be heavily involved (let alone leading) two different activist causes, especially such controversial ones.”

“ I`m not sure how it could be, when the author of a blog allows the kinds of things in that Denis Prager post to remain on his blog, especially after it was repeatedly made clear to him that Prager is condoning marital rape, using highly sexist (against women AND men) stereotypes to `prove`his point. Justin, as the owner of the blog, is also the editor, yet he to this day has not even thought twice about the content of that post or any other. If you take a quick glance at almost all of the other posts … Read morein that section, you will also see his penchant for picking and choosing quotes that seem to fit his ideological argument, and ignore the actual facts and or real life subtleties within them.”

“Will: that was one of many posts where Justin’s use of citations/sources were called into question, along with his polemical misrepresentations of complex legal issues, see:

http://www.equalismactivism.com/?p=1067… Read more
and
http://www.equalismactivism.com/?p=849

for just two examples.”

Now how about some of my favorite quotes from Justin’s blog… starting with women should have sex, even if they don’t want to, because…like…come on! its just like taking out the trash, man!

“Allow me to summarise. In these two columns Dennis Prager presents the argument that a wife who cares about having a happy husband rethinks the idea that if she is not in the mood then that means she must not have sex. Prager shines a light on the differences between men and women, sex is far more important to men than it is to women and that a man knows his wife loves him by the fact that she has sex with him. Does mood always determine our actions? No. Are you always in the mood to get up and go to work in the morning? Are you ever in the mood to get up in the night and feed the baby? Take out the trash? Sometimes we have obligations to do things that we don’t feel like doing because they lead to good consequences down the road.”

This one makes me LOL, because we buy nothing for men…and so we have to pick, diamond rings and spoils or pay equality, not both.:

“She [justin's girlfriend] finished before me and while I was having my haircut completed, she was asked by the hairdresser if she wished to pay for herself or to wait. And the wink that followed was to mean that waiting would have the advantage that I, the male, would then be obliged to pay for both my haircut and that of my girlfriend’s. Tell me why women ought to have pay equality if they are to have purchased for them diamond rings, dinners and haircuts?”

Ya know what women! You man THINK you’re making progress! But really, its the men still making decisions for you! Mwa hahah…err. wait… isn’t that supposed to be teh OPPOSITE arguement of his blog:

“One last reminder to those feminists who like to pat themselves on the back and tell each other that they and they alone are responsible for women’s progress.  All 9 Justices deciding Roe V. Wade were male.”

I can’t read anymore of it….The truly sad thing is that Justin has some really important issues raised on his blog. Men face sexism. Men work in high risk jobs. Men need birth control. Men often get screwed over in custody battles. Men have a higher suicide rate. Men lack support groups. But it’s all accompanied with ignorant comments about women and feminism. With an egotistical overtone that is really not helpful to anyone’s cause. If someone is going to be the face of any one cause or controversial organization – they shouldn’t try to pick up another. Especially one that alienates people. If I were the face of atheism/secularism in Canada…I wouldn’t be so active in my environmental things, I would stick to one cause if I was that prominent of a figurehead.

Justin thinks no one has left CFI because of his blog. I think it’s time we all stopped dancing around the issue. I don’t work with The Center for Inquiry – Canada, because I don’t agree with Justin’s other main cause. Actually, that’s not even fair. I support men’s rights. I DON’T support women bashing, grossly biased commentary about men’s issues, men’s issues trumping women’s issues, nit picking at articles because there is no “male voice” when there doesn’t need to be one, picking statistics that on their own support an argument but don’t in an overall sense, taking away women’s rights to give men rights and finally having the face of Canadian secularism association with all of these things. It is not healthy for CFI. And CFI IS losing volunteers despite what Justin would like to think. Myself and my hubby (John Xu) were very active at CFI and in campus groups. Neither of us are involved with CFI and campus groups now because of this issue. I know there are others, but we’re the only two I can really speak for. Hopefully other people start speaking up.

I wouldn’t be so upset, but I’ve heard and witnessed horror stories surrounding this issue.

Justin declining an interview from the CBC and accusing them of being sexist because they asked to interview me, instead of him???

Justin sending a response to a rape victim applying for a position within CFI saying that she is sexist and unprofessional because she has experience at women’s groups on her resume???

In my interview to work at CFI questioning the validity and necessity of my work as the women’s collective coordinator with a radio station?? Women are highly underrepresented on radio, men don’t need a specific group, they’re already the majority.

Telling me we can’t put “Equal opportunity” on our social service brochure because it’s sexist???

Using CFI contacts to promote his “equalism” blog???

Not allowing Debbie Goddard to come and do her talk on multiculturalism and gender at CFI because he doesn’t agree with the topic so he makes us do a panel with inexperienced panelists instead???

Having signs up in his cubical at CFI saying he supports men’s rights and a bumper stick about male bashing in the media???

UGH.

/Fin.

Comments (5)

By Katie Kish, November 23, 2008 7:39 pm

So. As most people that read this site would know (all like 3 of you) Lib-Deb started out a long time ago in an attempt to start a partnered blog with my best friend. It’s had it’s high ups and very low downs… and recently a dry spell. Everything I contribute to is having a dry spell. There are a few things to blame for this, but mostly John. He just installed EVERY SINGLE sims expansion pack onto my computer. -_-

There are bloody seasons! resorts to visit! a pirate ship! you can MAKE curtains! have pets! do a full blown wedding! celebrate christmas! or be a jew!

…Seriously. I sit there and lose track of time. Eg – today I was going to play for 1 hour, yes. 1 hour. And then go and write like a mad women on all three sites I’m supposed to be a regular contributor to. ….That was at 2. It is now 6:30, and I just stopped playing. *sigh* but my mansion looks amazing. Its all modern and sexy lie. Too bad my computer hardly runs it… eep. I need a faster something. John put a new video card in, so it looks awesome. And he gave me more RAM… but it’s still running games REALLY slow. Which sucks. …I think the Ikea expansion pack…might be my favorite.

Anyway – The point here is that I’ve decided to start committing more time to writing. Because I have to. …I just feel so bad not contributing to sites anymore, and I’m losing my ability to write quickly while still being
effectively funny, interesting or intelligent. It’s all going down hill and hopefully by stepping back onto the blogging treadmill I’ll be able to bring those things back up.

The problem with Lib-Deb is that a long time ago, when I’d write a lot, I made a nice name for myself. So now… I’m writing about envrio stuff at eco-chick, atheist stuff at Edger and gender issues at Equalism Activism. …What does that leave me to write about here? Well. Me… mostly. My rants, my life and probably some dinosaurs.

Comments (7)

By Katie Kish, July 20, 2008 9:30 pm

Soooo, a bunch of people will have heard about my blog at the conference this weekend… and they’re going to want to be pointed in the direction of a couple posts:

- Why Atheists Annoy Me: The post that PZ linked to which resaulted in his little minions flocking over and attacking the place

- Full Frontal Reviewed: I can’t find the original post when Jessica Valenti first started spouting her pure disliking for me. This post, however, was one of the ones that she wasn’t too happy about. I also didn’t speak too highly of her here… Aaaaand pretty much every feminist on the blogosphere hated my “Making Feminism Inclusive” post…

- The Skatje thing. Why she wants to punch me… this one is going to have to happen in a few parts. Here is the original post that started everything, called Long Distance Relationships and Love. Skatje responded to the post by calling me a slut. It was never resolved and she’s hated me every since.

Comments (1)

By Katie Kish, May 27, 2008 5:51 pm

…From *that place* that *guy* posts some questions:

What is your mission statement?

I don’t really have one. Mostly because this blog has gone up and down and back and forth in terms of topics. It started out primarily about liberal politics, then there was a huge period of primarily environmental issues, then shifted a lot to feminism, then shifted a lot to science about dinosaurs and pre-historic stuff …now it’s just a slew of things, mostly atheism… When I started the blog I did it because I had a lot of free time and it seemed like a good idea. I was reading a lot of blogs and wanted to comment on things, but wasn’t really into the whole commenting thing because I didn’t like being attacked.

Then I wanted the site to be a lot like skepchick and wanted it to be more of a group blog. (BTW – I wish I read skepchick more often. But I totally hate that there is a 100% lack of Canadian issues. They mentioned Canada once in the time that I’ve been reading and it was to link to a completely biased and disgusting attack on the CBC. Suffice to say – I think they need some sort of Canadian blogger writing for them. If they had that, I’d be more interested in reading it.) That’s when I joined eco-chick with the intent of leaving lib-deb and going full time over there. But… slowly my interest in environmental issues didn’t disappear, but definitely lessened as I got involved with the secular movement.

Why do you blog?????????

For something to do, really. I have fun with it sometimes, and I think that people want to hear my opinion, so I go with that. Now – I blog at eco-chick because I’m concerned about the environment and they need someone to break their fluffy stuff and write about something that snaps people back to reality.

We’re starting Edger because we’re students concerned about religion and the progression of the secular movement. (I don’t think I’ll be having a very prominent spot there, although I’m one of the “founders” … I think primarily I’ll just contribute the weekly radio show that will be podcasted. …That will be my… main thing to do there. Originally I was going to be “the girl” but Shalini has been brought on, so she’ll cover that bit nicely.)

Oh – and because my brother thinks he’s going to start making money off my site……… yeah.