This entry was posted
on Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 at 7:20 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
229 Responses to “General Debate 17 November 2009”
Farmers, greenies and Nats back ETS exemption
16 Nov, 2009 12:58 PM
An unlikely trio of farm groups, the Humane Society and The Nationals are all publicly backing the Federal Government’s decision to permanently exclude agriculture from its emissions trading scheme.
The decision came as a result of Climate Change Minister Penny Wong’s on-going negotiations with her Liberal counterpart Ian Macfarlane, as they try to reach consensus on a package acceptable to both sides of politics.
“There’s obviously other things on their list,” Sen Wong said. “We have said to them – economically responsible, environmentally effective. They are the tests we’ll apply.
“But in terms of agriculture, this is an offer that is made by the Government on an issue that we know is important to the Opposition because we are serious about getting this legislation through.”
Sen. Wong said that while farmers were excluded from having to reduce emissions, they would be able to sell credits for offsets they create via soils or forestry.
The National Party is determined to passing climate change legislation despite a deadlocked select committee report and complaints that taxpayers could carry a $100 billion burden. It is working on a deal with the Maori Party to secure support to get the bill through.
In return Maori would be given preferential treatment and allowed to grow trees on DOC land at no cost, harvesting them for carbon credit profits.
The votes of 56,000 racists, separatists, and fools could send New Zealand into more debt for generations to come, to overturn the principle of colour-blind lawmaking, and to place an enormous burden on the productive people who actually earn the money to pay for this insanity.
Where is the much vaunted leadership of John Key? How the incompetent Smith can be left to ram this bill through Parliament and impoverish us all?
So John Key’s National Party is selling some of all our birthright, the conservation estate namely, our land and trees and the trade on them to some Maori Iwi’s but not all.
Where will it stop?
We voted out The Labour Party to stop nanny state and troughing especially kowtowing to Maoridom and have all of us represented.
As for the sunset clause to up their settlements is they proportionately get overtaken by other tribes….
What will happen is that farming here will get similar exemptions, as will Maori. The average NZers doesn’t know or care.
The scheme will start and, importantly, give our politicians bragging right in their quest for a bigger trough at the UN.
The average taxpayer and business owner will start paying and never stop.
There will be rorts leading to establishment of a monitoring commission which itself will cost millions.
Opposition parties will jump in and use the ETS as a battering ram against the incumbent, but then switch to supporting it once in office – themselves interested in the UN trough. A bit like Nick Smith has done.
The average taxpayer and business owner will continue paying.
The vast sums of NZ money sent to Russia or wherever will have precisely nil impact on the environment, but we’ll be forced to continue with that and, if any subsequent treaty like the one proposed for Copenhagen, is adopted, we’ll be subjected to a global wealth transfer tax which we’re not able to opt out of
Meanwhile, NZers just sigh and observe “Ah well, it’s all ok. If I could just win lotto my life would be ok”. Doh!
“In return Maori would be given preferential treatment and allowed to grow trees on DOC land at no cost, harvesting them for carbon credit profits.”
Don’t forget: “It also includes a beefed up home insulation package for the low paid, predominantly Maori, and a Treaty of Waitangi clause in the Government’s emissions trading legislation.”
I think this is a major misstep by National, far too rushed and ill-considered for the sake of reaching a deadline that doesn’t matter. If they carry on with this like this it will be a major embarrassment.
Not too late to scrap it and start again properly. Smith may be tainted – if he is not able to work with Labour on it they should find someone who will.
Who in their right mind in 21st century New Zealand is going to try and develop a new Industry.
Trying to will become an exercise in futility – you take all the risks do all the hard work but all the fruits of your initiative and labour will be sucked up by non productive troughers as you buy your carbon credits not to mention paying the government their cut in the absorbatant taxes they already take.
A fast track ticket to third worldom.
Are National so clueless that they don’t see this? Apparently so.
Stuff.co headlines an article on “A sweetheart deal for iwi … to push through climate change legislation” but does not mention this figure, as far as I can see, in the item. However, having heard not so long ago of the trillions projected to be the future cost of superannuation, when will anyone decide we are getting a little out of our depth financially?
Lets see now. We are being royally shafted by National. What could Keys next career move be? Well we have uncle Helen ‘redristributing’ wealth for the UN, Tony Blair picked as Presdent of the EU, perhaps Key is in line for the role of president of the pacific version of the EU all positions of course are ‘appointed’ not elected and that will leave Obambi available for head of new World government that would explain his grovelling around the world. Have you noticed he has got the ‘deep bow’ to the Saudi and Japanese monarchs down to a fine art.
Once in a blue moon style event. LA Times gives favourable coverage to Conservative-
—————————————————
At age 20, Hannah Giles is a rock star of conservative activism. She shot onto the national scene in September after posing as a prostitute at ACORN offices around the country, where she secretly videotaped employees who appeared to give her advice on tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution.
Outrage over the recordings led Congress to cut federal funding for the community organizing group.
Giles credits the Young America’s Foundation — the group that put on the conference — with inspiring much of her political action.
Two years ago, she said, she was just a laid-back surfer kid from Miami when a friend got her to attend a foundation event in Washington, D.C. That, she said, was where she converted to conservatism.
In her lecture about how to take down liberal organizations and expose what she called media corruption, Giles on Friday sought to stir others to action. “Above all, attack, attack, attack,” she said, quoting Republican consultant Roger Stone. “Never defend.”
Undercover Video Shows Pig Farm Employees Allegedly Abusing Pigs
Monday, November 16, 2009
Undercover video exposes disturbing treatment of animals at the Country View Family Farms in central Pennsylvania.
CHICAGO — A disturbing video released exclusively to Fox News by the animal rights group Mercy for Animals (MFA) shows a string of alleged abuses at one of the nation’s largest pig farms, including footage of employees picking up baby pigs and tossing them like footballs.
You’re damn right there Manolo. One of the few NZ blogs that actually tells it the way it is. Thanks KG for your courage and your honesty and your hard work.
Attack, attack, attack. Never defend.
Divide, divide, divide. Never mend.
Abuse, abuse, abuse. No good friend.
Negative until the bitter end.
Appeal, appeal, appeal to fellow nuts.
Popular support left in the dust.
Time for a super sized popcorn and comfy chair. Anyone want to run a sweep on how long before they’re hosing Tim out of the woodwork? http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/
Murray- note the Herald losers are too damn dumb to even put links in their story? Useless pricks.
Not because they’re too dumb (they have hyperlinks elsewhere). It’s deliberate. By limiting their outgoing links they can conserve their pagerank mana. Keeping it pure for their own sites and friends.
Cactus Kate’s original post reads like a straw-man kicking contest. Based on the false premise that in the past the media were fearless crusaders who threw legal caution to the wind at every opportunity. Twas never thus.
“I think he just didn’t want to allow people to get Kates version of events Red.”
Yeah. Just more cowardice from the corrupt, dying and decrepit establishment that the newspaper business has become since it fell so completely under the control of the Progressives.
I think he just didn’t want to allow people to get Kates version of events Red.
If they wanted to try that on, they wouldn’t have named Kate’s blog in the first sentence. There probably aren’t many internet users who can’t use Google.
“So pleased we got rid of Labour over here if that is what they are getting over there!”
Get off the grass. National are just as bogged down in this Progressive shit as Labour. The way out of this mess is to reject all encumbent politicians, National or Labour or anyone who has been in parliament a long time.
Why?
Because they let it happen.
They stood there and they either preached their damn PC bullshit, or they listened to it without voicing any opposition, and they, National and Labour and the rest, have taken our money, and they have given it to those who would destroy us and our society.
..and they are still doing it right now as I write.
Throw all of the encumbents and their disciples out. They’re all useless.
Piss off with the endless questions troll. I’m not here to fill the voids in your vacuous mind.
A little research on what is happening in the US (with Tea Party candidates) will do the trick. Instead of lamely asking infantile questions all the time, get off your useless arse and find the answers for yourself.
Dr Smith said the alteration made by Treasury was a “changed assumption” about the cost of carbon rather than a miscalculation by officials. He denied the $110b estimate represented a cost to the Crown, saying it was foregone revenue rather than debt.
“If you apply a different set of assumptions… you get a different and larger number,” he said.
That’s pathetic spin. Foregone revenue has to be replaced. How is it replaced? With debt of course.
As for applying a different set of assuptions, try this on Nick Smith: abandon the whole scam in the knowledge that doing so is the best thing for NZ despite to costing you your UN ambitions.
Malcolm, when someone is committed to attack attack attack, never defend, you won’t get any practical or feasible solutions offered. But I think you know that.
The Redbaiter Tea Party approach is to attack attack attack any potential candidate who might have the slightest whiff of non-compliance with their views. Anyone who doesn’t want to lock up all potential criminals, anyone who thinks women should be able to be something other than submissive wives, anyone who dares thinking of using the left side of their brain, they are all attacked.
This approach may work in the US, in some cases (it failed in NY-23). But here it would mean that the main parties would have to let the Redbaiter Tea Party dictate to them what candidates to stand. And the electorate would have to buy into it. Maybe if they are attacked enough they will roll over. They don’t sell Tui in the US.
I’m standing in the main street of Levin watching an awful lot of votes the National party will lose ride past on thier bikes. Good on these guys and girls for being proactive.
Great idea RB, can start with dick whacking Smith and his demented followers. With a bit of luck and the grace of God it looks like Copenhagen will be nothing more then a glorified piss up. As Pete says, why the rush. Are the climate change tossers in the Nats that desperate to impress the socialist fools in Europe?. It seems to me that in one breath Shonkey thinks the whole thing is going to fall over in the next breath he saying the circus must continue. When are these pricks going to grow some balls and call it for what it is, a fucking con.
“anyone who thinks women should be able to be something other than submissive wives,”
You’re never going to stop with the lying are you Pete. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn are far from being “submissive wives”. Thats just more of the gross propaganda and dishonesty that characterizes everything you ever say here.
They support traditional values, and you can lie about it as much as you want of course, but traditional values has never meant “submissive wives”. You’re just full of lies, cowardice and deceit Pete. Grossly repugnant.
“..Yeah. Just more cowardice from the corrupt, dying and decrepit establishment that the newspaper business has become since it fell so completely under the control of the Progressives..”
Not that it is possible to force it, but even campaigning on something like that would not be popular with a lot of women – neither would it be likely to be supported by those men who have progressed from the stone age.
You really are thick Pete. Because there is nothing wrong with the patriachal family unit.
would not be popular with a lot of women – neither would be likely to be supported by those men who have progressed from the stone age.
More denigration and ridicule.
If you are serious about what you say Pete then you are continuously reading something that isn’t there. And it is becuase of your fearful, pea sized mind.
I know many, many woman that are very happy with the idea of a man going and earning a decent living for his family and are perfectly happy to keep house for a decent one. I don’t know where you live but isn’t much like what I see around me.
Saying this does not mean I think woman cannot have a career or that the roles cannot be reversed. But if you try to have a career and raise a family something has to give, one of them has to be moderated. And the patriachal family model has been historically the best way of managing this and nothing has gone wrong with that model.
“Not that it is possible to force it, but even campaigning on something like that would not be popular with a lot of women”
Funny ain’t it then that the uprising against the Progressive ideas you and your spikey haired lesbian or mush brained indoctrinated by Marxist feminist moron friends promote is being led by women.
Not too late to scrap it and start again properly. Smith may be tainted – if he is not able to work with Labour on it they should find someone who will.
Why do Labour have to work with National on this issue? Labour’s ETS is already law. The next sectors enter the scheme in January.
National can work with:
– ACT: ACT don’t believe in climate change and want to scrap the whole thing. So that’s a non-starter.
– Greens: Greens want to strengthen the ETS. National want to weaken it.
– Maori: Well, that’s where we are at the moment.
Now 50% (down 5% since August 2009) of Australians
Approve of Australia’s proposed Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme and
30% (up 3%) say “Concerns are exaggerated” about Global Warming
Pity DPF is in the other side of the world, otherwise I’d suggest creating a posting on the ETS and how National, abetted by the racist Maori Party, intend to shaft New Zealand with this absurd piece of legislation.
Didn’t National campaign on a “no more taxes” platform? Ah, the spineless Tories never disappoint.
Funny ain’t it then that the uprising against the Progressive ideas you and your spikey haired lesbian or mush brained indoctrinated by Marxist feminist moron friends promote is being led by women.
Who aren’t popular with a lot of women.
Q. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin?
—Favorable– -Unfavorable–
NET Strongly NET Strongly
All 43 20 52 34
Men 48 20 46 29
Women 39 20 57 39
Q. If Palin runs for president in 2012, would you definitely vote for her, would you consider voting for her, or would you definitely not vote for her?
Definitely Would Definitely
would consider would not
All 9 7 53
Men 11 38 50
Women 8 36 55
Yawn… For every polll you produce, I can produce one that shows the opposite.
If Palin and Bachmann and the rest were not gaining traction, the left would not be in such abject diarrhoea stricken fear of them.
Your desperate and cowardly attempts to discredit them show your naked fear and your lack of argument.
Bachmann and others are showing your Progressive emperor up as a liar and fraud with no clothes, and with your media allies exposed as corrupt liars too, there is no way you can stop them.
Why specifically patriarchal? You say the roles can be reversed. Wouldn’t a matriarchal model work just as well?
It seems that what you’re saying works about the model is that there are two parents, one of whom works and the other runs the house.
FFS Ryan, are you and your ilk really this stupid and weak.
It is natural to split the roles of raising children and getting the food. Nature did this millions of years ago, hence men and women have different physical characteristics. Why are you so afraid of traditional sterotypes? They are not insulting or denigrating to anyone, and they do not stop a woman going out and doing anything she wants. For some f-ed up reason, you are more comfortable blindly lying about reality.
It is only recently that a significant number of modern jobs allow the physical differences to be ignored.
Get 100 average men and 100 average women to dig a ditch for a day and I guarantee the men will get further.
You’ve heard me bemoan the IPCC’s cherry-picking of datasets to support the United Nations Environmental Programme predetermined view that global warming will soon have us all living in a desert. (Not convinced of that assertion? Click the link and check out the symbolism on their report’s cover!)
So back to cherry-picking. I did some research and turned up this fascinating analysis: A Cherry-Picker’s Guide to Temperature Trends (down, flat–even up). If you’re even slightly curious/suspicious about the way trend analysis is report then read this in detail. Note the “Fig.2″ graph. This isn’t temperature trends over time; it’s the variation that is exposed by picking different starting points for trend analysis.
getstaffed, not surprising you are fascinated by the analysis (cherry picked by you) by MasterResource “A free-market energy blog”. The links go straight back to big business advocacy.
To balance it why don’t you find some fascinating research that is backed by some big businesses who think they can make a buck out of climate change?
Offtopic… Every year the Oxford dictionaries try to gain publicity adding a whole lot of stupid words, or having “word of the year”. I don’t care if they add words, but I hate the fact it’s treated as a marketing tool. They try to find trendy words (e.g. “unfriend”) and release a press release that useless media outlets (all of them) will publish without editing in their “Oddstuff” section or, in NZ, usually on the front page.
If I ever buy a new dictionary (I’ll probably just google, or dictionary.com any word I don’t understand) I promise not to buy from Oxford.
“..of ‘the best newsite’.. http://www.whoar.co.nz/
(read by ‘the informed’..eh..?..you’d take a ‘pass’ on that..?..eh..?..)
14 stories/links have met the high standards so far..”
All that hard work and posts . . . and not one comment . . .
damn . . .
but as i say…it is for the open/inquiring/informed mind..eh..?
FFS Ryan, are you and your ilk really this stupid and weak.
It is natural to split the roles of raising children and getting the food. Nature did this millions of years ago, hence men and women have different physical characteristics. Why are you so afraid of traditional sterotypes? They are not insulting or denigrating to anyone, and they do not stop a woman going out and doing anything she wants. For some f-ed up reason, you are more comfortable blindly lying about reality.
It is only recently that a significant number of modern jobs allow the physical differences to be ignored.
Get 100 average men and 100 average women to dig a ditch for a day and I guarantee the men will get further.
Sonny,
I may not have been clear. I was asking you whether or not you think breadwinner/house-maintainer combinations are equally successful regardless of how those two roles are assigned today, when digging ditches is not the usual means of winning bread. You said nothing stops women being the breadwinners, but you didn’t specify if you thought that was as successful as men being the breadwinners.
Pete, feel free to comment or find fault with the analysis. Or just accuse me of bias – that appears an easier, altogether more comfortable response for you. As for the big business making big bucks, just google the climate profit Al Gore and see how his carbon-trading investments are working out. Nice little earner those.
Look behind—if you dare—Al Gore and his science hoax, and you find the very same London-centered oligarchical financial crew that drove the 2003-2006 oil and commodity price increase, amidst the bubbles and hyperinflation that characterize the breakdown-phase of the financial system. The centerpiece of the U.S. emerging market for carbon emissions trading, is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), created in 2003 as a “voluntary,” or pilot agency, part of a London-based network positioned to reproduce the oil bubble on a scale orders of magnitude greater and more dangerous, while at the same time, destroying what’s left of the physical economy.
The idea is that if governments cap CO2 emissions, then the “market” will take off for the buying and selling of emissions “allowances.” This is the whole point of the “cap-and-trade” plan for CO2. If it sounds crazy, it is. But Gore is just one of the most visible parts of the elaborate (and bi-partisan) schemes that have been set in motion under cover of climate change. Gore’s personal financial involvement is blatant, especially through Goldman Sachs—a large shareholder of CCX, and in 2004, the creator of Gore’s very own London-based hedge fund, Generation Investment Management.
[continues ...]
I wonder if any of our polticians have hidden investments tied up with carbon trading?
Sorry, harping I know. But check out Key’s comment this morning:
Meanwhile, Key has also slammed Treasury predictions that the proposed changes to the ETS would add $50 billion to the price tag of the scheme. “The numbers from Treasury are nonsense. Treasury can’t tell us what the deficit is going to be in December let alone what’s happening in 2030 or 2040.
Key’s ETS has its origins in climate science that can’t agree models for historical, observed climate change, yet we’re asked to hand over billions of dollars based on what could happen by 2100? Anyone else see the irony here?
You said nothing stops women being the breadwinners, but you didn’t specify if you thought that was as successful as men being the breadwinners.
That is not my friggin point. You are choosing to debate something irrelevant. It is easy to find a woman (Cathy Freeman for example) that can beat a man at something (me over 800m). But women still breast feed and men don’t get pregnant yet, it is another arrogance of the progressives to think that we have undone millions of years of evolution in a few short decades.
today, when digging ditches is not the usual means of winning bread.
You still live in la la land if you do not realise that plenty of the work that is done in this country is still physical, or do you think that all those buildings you spend your time in, and the food on your plate just appear out of nowhere?
The negatives of getting all namby pampy about refering to the patriachal family or rather the sterotype of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker is that young people today are less aware of how critical the decisions they are making are. A woman still needs to be thinking very clearly about whether the father of her children is going to stick around and be able to provide for his family, and a man needs to think clearly whether the mother of his children is going to stick around provide a stable home.
As the language from your types gets more and more muddy, the messages are becoming more and more muddy.
when digging ditches is not the usual means of winning bread.
What pisses me off about this Ryan, is that it is the working classes who bear the brunt of this form of progressive muddle headedness. There are more important things than satisfying the intellectual sensibilities of progressives.
and of course..i have been compiling todays’ edition..
..of ‘the best newsite’..
And with the statement, all pretenders to Phool’s crown of the most supreme fuckwit on Kiwiblog were silenced into awe.
The bar for the most stupid statement on Kiwiblog had been raised even higher.
That is not my friggin point. You are choosing to debate something irrelevant. It is easy to find a woman (Cathy Freeman for example) that can beat a man at something (me over 800m). But women still breast feed and men don’t get pregnant yet, it is another arrogance of the progressives to think that we have undone millions of years of evolution in a few short decades.
You still live in la la land if you do not realise that plenty of the work that is done in this country is still physical, or do you think that all those buildings you spend your time in, and the food on your plate just appear out of nowhere?
The negatives of getting all namby pampy about refering to the patriachal family or rather the sterotype of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker is that young people today are less aware of how critical the decisions they are making are. A woman still needs to be thinking very clearly about whether the father of her children is going to stick around and be able to provide for his family, and a man needs to think clearly whether the mother of his children is going to stick around provide a stable home.
As the language from your types gets more and more muddy, the messages are becoming more and more muddy.
Sonny,
I’m just asking you to clarify. You said: “Saying this does not mean I think woman cannot have a career or that the roles cannot be reversed.”
I am just asking if, in saying this, you are saying that a “female breadwinner, male house-maintainer” family is as successful as the reverse.
I’m not debating anything, relevant or irrelevant. I’m just asking you to clarify what you said.
I don’t understand, If agriculture is exempt……. If you are an orchard owner would you not be able to sell your credits for cash? or do the emmissions in manufacturing there fertilizers out way this. And if they don’t does it mean that because they are exempt that they cannot sell the credits they would build up?
So Geoffrey Palmer is vehemently opposed to democracy!!
“The Legislation Advisory Committee, chaired by former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, says the proposed public vote should not be allowed because it would contradict the fundamental purpose of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, which provided for non-binding referendums.”
Is it going to take actual revolution in this country before legislators and power brokers begin listening to what the majority want? This obfuscating load of bollocks from Palmer is an absolute joke. Trying to find some weasel word way to override the will of 80% + of the population is pathetic. Palmer needs to open his eyes and ears and realise that people are slowly but surely getting pissed off with the lack of response on major issues.
Re the march on Saturday, it is based around the anti smacking nonsense but has become much bigger than that. It is now about democracy and that is what I suspect the majority of the people will be there for. The turnout should be interesting.
Not sure why this gets up your goat Sonny. It started with the statement: The answer to crime is a more orderly and moral society, and that will only come from the restoration of the patriarchal family unit…
And you followed with Because there is nothing wrong with the patriachal family unit.
I don’t think anyone said there was anything wrong with the patriarchal family unit as one option (as long as both partners are happy with it as many are). But it doesn’t suit everyone and there are other types of family units that can work well too.
And sometimes the patriarchal family unit can go badly wrong, where the patriarch turns out to be an arsehole, the partner leaves him for the safety of herself and/or the kids, and the ex patriarch throws a hissy fit and assaults and sometimes kills because their position of power has been threatened.
When it comes to the ETS there is nothing to understand, it is a tax grab and nothing else. One of the greatest rorts in history, right up there with the “window tax” and “wig tax” in England in the 16th/17th centuries.
On an individual case, yes. One of my brothers does this. Across society, no.
It is a trite and irrelevant question that leads me to believe you are thick.
Do you believe that there is a problem with a male breadwinner/female homemaker family?
No, I don’t think there’s a problem with it. If it’s what people choose, it’s fine with me. But I’m sure you don’t think it inevitably works, just as you don’t think that fb/mh families inevitably don’t work (with your brother as an example of it working). And if both models work sometimes and not other times, there have to be other factors that go to making a successful family.
I don’t know anyone who has any particular aversion to either model – no one demanding men stay home, no one demanding men go out and work. I certainly think that a single-income family has advantages over double-income families, as one of the parents is at home to be more actively involved in their kids’ lives.
Swiftman lets not forget that farmers pay tax to. Do you think it’s only people who live in the big smoke that will have to pay, whether agricultural emissions are included or not farmers will still be paying. And why should Kiwi farmers be the only ones in the world to pay for agricultural emissions. I tell you why. The fucking socialists, including the brain dead Nats realised that their cut would just not be there unless they included agriculture. Thieving pack of bastards.
Chthoniid, hippos aren’t vegans, they eat meat and have been observed eating their own kind. They do not do this often but Geographic Channel ran a doco about Hippos killing and eating animals. ( The dark side of Hippos )
And sometimes the patriarchal family unit can go badly wrong, where the patriarch turns out to be an arsehole, the partner leaves him for the safety of herself and/or the kids, and the ex patriarch throws a hissy fit and assaults and sometimes kills because their position of power has been threatened.
This is a dumb, infantile, pointless thing to add.
If the family unit is not patriarchal, does this then lessen the issue of any of the people involved being bad people?
Chthoniid, hippos aren’t vegans, they eat meat and have been observed eating their own kind. They do not do this often but Geographic Channel ran a doco about Hippos killing and eating animals. ( The dark side of Hippos )
Dad’s horse on the farm when I was a kid loved killing sheep. It would stand by a fence and wait til the sheep came close to eat the grass. It would reach over, grab a mouthful of sheep and try to toss it into her paddock where she would stomp the sheep to death. She became dog tucker and spagehtti sauce.
Actually, as a model, the patriarchal family unit is terrible and dangerous. Especially when you compare it to say, a woman with kids fathered by several different low lives, with yet another low life sharing her bed and home. That model never goes wrong.
You are intellectualising and I do not disagree with the intellectual point. But the world is real life, not an intellectual problem.
People are malleable and easily influenced. Confusing the language and ignoring the majority for the sake of the (tiny) minority is wasteful.
You will probably find most of the instances of successful female led households in the middle and upper classes. But Johnny and Jane who leave school after school c (or whatever it is now) are taking their cues from the world around them and I think they are more confused (or casual in their decisions) now. They are better served by real world role models than all thinking they are going to be job-juggling supermums (and vice versa).
I assume there are a great many interrelated causes, and as many possible solutions – some that come with their own problems:
1. Unprotected sex -> more available contraception, more sex education, discouragement of sex, contraception in the water supply, etc.
2. Social and cultural condemnation of abortion -> more available abortion, more acceptance of abortion, etc.
3. Fewer committed long-term relationships -> more support for newlyweds, more real and fictional role models for commitment (ie., revolutionise Shortland Street for a start), etc.
4. Less time for parents to do the work of raising their kids to be responsible -> raise minimum wage, raise benefits to families unable to maintain a full-time parent, etc.
5. Poor decisions made while drinking -> raise drinking age, ban alcohol completely, etc.
6. The list goes on…
What do you think the causes and possible solutions are?
Chthoniid, hippos aren’t vegans, they eat meat and have been observed eating their own kind. They do not do this often but Geographic Channel ran a doco about Hippos killing and eating animals. ( The dark side of Hippos )
One of the appeals of the crocodilians, is that you don’t get any mixed signals from crocodiles
“..# Chthoniid (692) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
and of course..i have been compiling todays’ edition..
..of ‘the best newsite’..
And with the statement, all pretenders to Phool’s crown of the most supreme fuckwit on Kiwiblog were silenced into awe.
The bar for the most stupid statement on Kiwiblog had been raised even higher..”
point me at/show me a better daily round-up of local/international news..clintoiid…
You are intellectualising and I do not disagree with the intellectual point. But the world is real life, not an intellectual problem.
People are malleable and easily influenced. Confusing the language and ignoring the majority for the sake of the (tiny) minority is wasteful.
You will probably find most of the instances of successful female led households in the middle and upper classes. But Johnny and Jane who leave school after school c (or whatever it is now) are taking their cues from the world around them and I think they are more confused (or casual in their decisions) now. They are better served by real world role models than all thinking they are going to be job-juggling supermums (and vice versa).
Perhaps there needs to simply be more emphasis across the board that raising kids and maintaining a house is a full-time job, whether it’s performed by a father or a mother.
It is natural that whatever people are programmed with by their society will be the first in people’s minds. But neither what has been done in the past nor the programming of society makes something good or right.
1. Unprotected sex -> more available contraception, more sex education, discouragement of sex, contraception in the water supply, etc.
Families
2. Social and cultural condemnation of abortion -> more available abortion, more acceptance of abortion, etc.
Families
3. Fewer committed long-term relationships -> more support for newlyweds, more real and fictional role models for commitment (ie., revolutionise Shortland Street for a start), etc.
Families
4. Less time for parents to do the work of raising their kids to be responsible -> raise minimum wage, raise benefits to families unable to maintain a full-time parent, etc.
Support business
5. Poor decisions made while drinking -> raise drinking age, ban alcohol completely, etc.
Families
6. The list goes on…
Families raise the people who make up our country, not governments and academics.
Modern western statistics are not inevitable, they represent how we choose to value our culture and its direction. In India and Asia amongst the emerging middle classes, family is paramount, much as it was during the ascendency of the west.
It is natural that whatever people are programmed with by their society will be the first in people’s minds. But neither what has been done in the past nor the programming of society makes something good or right.
So there is something wrong with male breadwinner/female homemaker? What is it? You need to talk to ‘gaia’ or god about it because thats who gave us the roles.
So there is something wrong with male breadwinner/female homemaker? What is it? You need to talk to ‘gaia’ or god about it because thats who gave us the roles.
There is not something wrong with it. There is something wrong with uncritically accepting it and rejecting the reverse simply because it is the way things have been in the past.
And regarding your solutions to the various possible causes of single-parent families, can you explain a little further how “families” is the solution?
Suggesting that “we’ve always done it that way” is not a sufficient justification for something is inflammatory?
Perhaps, “we’ve always done it that way” is because it is best practise.
And regarding your solutions to the various possible causes of single-parent families, can you explain a little further how “families” is the solution?
18yos clearly holding the value that ‘I must earn a decent, secure living to attract a decent wife and provide for a family’
or ‘I must choose a decent, secure man if I am to marry and have a family’ and sticking with those decisions.
Sonny, in a free society how do you make everyone be in a “family” (presumably structured how you like them to be).
BTW, I believe the best arrangement for bringing up kids is usually a family with mother and father partners with one or other being the main earner (or shared responsibility). But that is just my cultural bias. Not all cultures follow that strict model.
Perhaps, “we’ve always done it that way” is because it is best practise.
Possibly, but not necessarily, so it needs to be backed up with reasons for it being best practice.
18yos clearly holding the value that ‘I must earn a decent, secure living to attract a decent wife and provide for a family’ or ‘I must choose a decent, secure man if I am to marry and have a family’ and sticking with those decisions.
Okay. How do you suggest these values are inserted/encouraged in children?
It’s a good statement, Ryan. Gets to the nub of a lot of issues. Vapid was probably the wrong word.
If you question why things are a certain way, people often assume you have something against that way. So they save time and go immediately on the defensive. It’s probably not an inefficient short-cut. A sort of mental “shoot first; ask and answer questions later”.
Coming back to the actual definition of patriarchal:
Patriarchy is a social system in which the male is head of the household, having authority over women and children.
This isn’t just dad, mum and kids, it is not just who is the sole or main earner, it is male authority and ownership over the other people in the family. I don’t think that would be a very popular concept these days.
I don’t think that would be a very popular concept these days.
Nor is dairy farming but the income from that keeps you in the style of life to which you have become accustomed and will continue to do so until it is finally wrecked by Governmental parasitism.
I just checked it out, in the 1950s there were about three murders per annum in New Zealand – which is far far less than the number of children murdered by their “alternative” families in our enlightened age, let alone our murder rate even accounting for population increase.
Has anyone noticed the similarity between the White House recently announced “Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth” and the NZ Govt “Job Summit” ?
Perhaps Key has made quite an impression on Obama (or his advisors)!
So you don’t have any practical suggestions Sonny? Like pretty much everyone else. It’s easy to have ideals, far less easy to make everyone agree and follow them.
Perhaps Key has made quite an impression on Obama (or his advisors)!
Well Key seems to be bowing to every interest group here, so maybe you are right and that is why Obowma all but knocked his head on the floor to Akihito.
All I know is that I’ll be keeping my kids away from your kids and other ‘problem’ citizens kids.
I can’t fix all those other kids but I can sure as hell look after mine, and that is my part of the deal.
Well, sure, but you asked me about solutions to the problem at large, and I asked you for the same.
Trying to indoctrinate kids with your particular ideal of society would be a pretty mammoth nanny-state undertaking, of which I’m no great fan. I’m not even sure how you’d go about it. More regulation of TV shows so that kids see positive role models of the sort you suggest, teachers telling kids what is the right and wrong kind of family, perhaps tax incentives and legal penalties for adopting different family models, state-funded booklets explaining what kind of family a good New Zealand citizen has.
Combined, perhaps these measures could get that ideal into kids’ heads. Sounds pretty terrifying, though.
That weird giraffe which went around schools in a trailer to promote – i forget – could be re-trained.
Whanau, the Two-Parent Family Kakapo.
Kids, be like me,
And don’t be a fool.
If you’re gonna bone,
Here’s the golden rule:
Put a ring on her finger
And get yourself a job,
Cos crime and social problems
Are caused by drunken slobs.
Hey!
(chorus)
Whanau! Whanau!
The Two-Parent Kakapo!
Whanau! Whanau!
Get married before you blow!
(one child) Your loaaaaaaaaad!
I used to drink that stuff when I was programming. Once the foam starts coming out your mouth and you start spitting on your colleagues – but carry on talking anyway – it’s all over for the day.
You don’t need a government program for everything. Last time I looked up the word ’solution’ it didn’t say ‘when you have a government program for it’.
You don’t need a government program for everything. Last time I looked up the word ’solution’ it didn’t say ‘when you have a government program for it’.
I’m just throwing around suggestions to fill the gap left by your “I’ll just keep my kids away from them” solution, as ways to implement your “kids have to start valuing family” solution.
That’s rich. You haven’t said anything that made sense since your gaffe over the number of patriarchal families, and the absurd claim that you speak for “most people”.
That is a solution. What you do every day and how you raise your kids matters a hell of a lot more than any government programs. The end result is the society we see around us. It’s just so pervasive that perhaps you miss it.
That is a solution. What you do every day and how you raise your kids matters a hell of a lot more than any government programs. The end result is the society we see around us. It’s just so pervasive that perhaps you miss it.
What I mean is that there are already two-parent families raising their kids well in New Zealand, and have been for some time, and it doesn’t seem to be rubbing off on our “problem” folk.
Just a little something for you deniers out there. It basically says that by the time the IPCC reports come out, they are already out of date.
Understandably, we are now gathering data in ever-increasing quantity and accuracy as the scientific community understand the need for hard evidence if we to combat anthropomorphic climate change.
Also understandably, this evidence will not sway the ranters and haters out there who use the anonymity of the blogosphere to indulge their fantasies but I am sure the odd real person here would appreciate being updated on the very latest thinking.
Luc, aside from the debate about how much humans contribute to climate change, do you support a global cap and trade/ETS type of scheme as the response to it? Would you support 2% of our GDP being contributed to a global climate change regulatory organisation? I just don’t see how taxing individuals can possibly make a difference to climate change.
I’m also curious as to what we’re going to do to reduce the water vapour in the atmosphere, which is apparently more of a problem than CO2. How do we break the water cycle? We clearly need to stop evaporation ASAP or we’ll drown in our beds.
Getstaffed, I think you are on to something about the ETS and the selling and buying of carbon credits. They did it in Los Angeles for awhile, meanwhile smog went up, and a lot of companies got rich and the small ones just couldn’t afford keeping up with them and went out of business. I am going to look into it. Usually if you follow the money trail it makes sense and it would make sense for Nick Smith lying to the public while in opposition and then changing overnight. . I wonder if John Key has some investments in the carbon trading scheme. This whole thing is starting to make sense now. Perhaps Wishart should study John Key’’s net worth while this ETS scam is put into place.
“As Effects of Warming Grow, U.N. Report is Quickly Dated”
Doesn’t mention anthropogenic anywhere. Warming is expected Luc, humans or no.
From wikipedia:
Interglacial optimum
An interglacial optimum, or climatic optimum of an interglacial, is the period within an interglacial that experienced the most ‘favourable’ climate that occurred during that interglacial, often during the middle part. The climatic optimum of an interglacial follows, and is followed by, phases that are within the same interglacial and that experienced a less favourable climate (but nevertheless a ‘better’ climate than during the preceding/succeeding glacials). During an interglacial optimum, sea levels rise to their highest values, but not necessarily exactly at the same time as the climatic optimum.
The preceding interglacial optimum occurred during the Late Pleistocene Eemian Stage, 131–114 ka. During the Eemian the climatic optimum took place during pollen zone E4 in the type area (city of Amersfoort, Netherlands). Here this zone is characterized by the expansion of Quercus (Oak), Corylus (Hazel), Taxus, Ulmus (Elm), Fraxinus (Ash), Carpinus (Hornbeam), and Picea (Spruce). During the Eemian Stage sea level was about 8 meters higher than today and the water temperature of the North Sea was c. 2°C higher than at present.
I had a look at your link though. I liked this comment (among others)
IMHO, it should have explained that “outdated” really means: The IPCC’s major conclusion — that warming of the past 50 years is “very likely” (= 90-99% sure) anthropogenic — is no longer valid, being based on the misuse of inadequate climate models. It has also been falsified by recent observations.
(Prof) S. Fred Singer
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Posted by S. Fred Singer on 09 Jun 2009
Sonny, no-one says natural warming isn’t expected at times. What is frustrating here is that all the sensible questions, and even some not-so-sensible ones, are answered in the IPCC reports. For example, the reports detail uncertainties and incomplete data in great detail. Once again, here is the link for the IPCC report that addresses most of the queries raised by pseudo-scientists and skeptical scientists, which are almost universally not climatologists and are most definitely a dwindling minority.
This is an extract pertaining to your earlier post. And it also explains how modeling fits into the science. You know, the first trip to the moon only existed in modeling until it actually occurred. Global warming has already occurred and recovered data is now feeding into the models projecting the future. I urge you to look carefully at this freely available information.
It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is consistent with the scientifi c understanding
of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in green- house gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity. Climate models provide a suitable tool to study the various influences on the Earth’s climate. When the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases are included in the models, as well as natural external factors, the models produce good simulations of the warming that has occurred over the past century. The models fail to reproduce the observed warming when run using only natural factors. When human factors are included, the models also simulate a geographic pattern of temperature change around the globe similar to that which has occurred in recent decades. This spatial pattern, which has features such as a greater warming at high northern latitudes, differs from the most important patterns of natural climate variability that are associated with internal climate processes, such as El Niño.
Pete, there’s a article about climate models here. They refer to MAGICC (latest version was developed under a grant from the EPA) which can be downloaded from here.
This isn’t observational science Luc. It’s unverified computer modeling (akin to astrology as far as scientific disciplines go).
About half of the words in that sentence are true.
Astrology is a poor comparison because astrology consistently fails to predict anything. Whereas, as I understand it, computer climate models do a reasonable job of predicting the present, given historical data. Not perfectly, of course (and you should be suspicious of any model that does perfectly model known conditions), but well enough that they’re worth looking at.
Is this blog a troll farm for pc lefty liberal geeks? I mean to say mal, lunk and petey, georgie girl and the drug addict phool linking whoring like a caged rat on acid.
the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors
Because the scientists weren’t around to observe the last interglacial period. They have no idea what is consistent because this is the first time they have observed it.
Climate models provide a suitable tool to study
When the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases are included in the models
the models produce good simulations of the warming that has occurred over the past century
The models fail to reproduce the observed warming when run using only natural factors
the models also simulate a geographic pattern
Models, models, models, anything about measurable data?
How come the conclusions were formed and predictions made well before these models were ‘improved’ if they are so important to the understanding of climate.
ou know, the first trip to the moon only existed in modeling until it actually occurred.
And it’s a hell of a lot simpler than modeling the climate, and they were able to correct things as they went.
Computer models for car impact tests are also very good now, only because they were able to do real life tests against the models and improve them, the one thing laking from climate models.
How many computer programs (which these models are) run perfectly before live tests? Can windows who spend billions and billions and have the best people have a piece of code run perfectly the first time? After all running a logical computer operating system is a hell of lot easier than modelling life on earth.
Sonny, the lefty hip hop climate change freaks will argue that windows and google can change the weather. Keyboard cowboys on bullshit acid. Have a raw steak phool you vege twit. Must go the computer needs a good water. Fuck off with the bullshit gals and liberal wimps.
Models are the product of processes (various theoretical) and data (various source types [terrestrial, ocean, and satellite], each with varying data quality controls).
The result is a matrix of permutations which means, once again, someone can run enough data through enough varied processes until they get the ‘evidence’ to support their hunch.
phool that murder business was heavy crap and 60 minutes want to talk. I enjoy meat and at least I do more than some deranged drug addict siiting all day on a stupid fucking computer wanking dribble rhetoric everywhere!! Get in the ring you jerk. No doubt the police have a vid of you when you robbed the chemist shop. Remember deranged addict?
Understandably, we are now gathering data in ever-increasing quantity and accuracy as the scientific community understand the need for hard evidence if we to combat anthropomorphic climate change.
So, Luc, it’s “anthropomorphic climate change” now, is it?
Not ‘anthropomorphic global warming’?
So I guess that means man is responsible for both global warming and global cooling?
So does that mean the last 10 years of global cooling are ALSO a result of man’s activities?
Kind of like having your cake and eating it too, eh Luc?
The result is a matrix of permutations which means, once again, someone can run enough data through enough varied processes until they get the ‘evidence’ to support their hunch.
The second part of your sentence gives an incorrect impression. With stochastic modelling the free inputs are randomly generated according to their estimated distributions, and the model is run many, many times. This gives you a distribution of outcomes for whatever you’re interested in. It’s not a case of running the simulation until you get a single outcome which matches what you want. And because you have a distribution of outcomes, you get results that look like this “there’s a 90% chance that X will exceed Y”. And which is why you’ll never get a black and white answer; only a range with associated probabilities.
getstaffed 6:06 pm If you’re interested in the quality of terrestrial temperature data, check out this paper:
Another from the Heartlands list.
But the results did not match Watts’s expectations; a NOAA analysis of the Surface Stations data showed “no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.”
I’m not a fan of privatising global warming, which is what ETS does, essentially. I’m concerned about the potential for rorts and the prospect of paying some countries for smarter forgery than genuine reductions in emissions. While I have some sympathy for a carbon tax with individual tradeable rebates, the same basic objections apply. However, we must start somewhere and thanks to the naysayers here, I have done enough research now to be changed from a reluctant advocate for action to fully supporting effective or even semi-effective schemes.
I have posted this link before http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com which supports technological innovation rather than cap and trade schemes. But what if the innovation doesn’t occur?
New Zealand is in a unique position, as far as I know, in that 40% of emissions derive from our livestock, so why we aren’t pouring millions into a drive for discovery of some method of reducing our methane emissions is a source of wonderment to me. We could even contract out to high achieving scientific communities such as that in Israel. It’s that important.
Kris, yes, that is exactly the case. Some emissions actually cause cooling before they cause warming. Think of nature’s clouds. They have a localised warming effect, yet overall act to cool the planet. On the other hand, the human induced ozone hole, which is particularly large at the moment, is responsible for a temporary localised cooling effect over Antarctica
New Zealand is in a unique position, as far as I know, in that 40% of emissions derive from our livestock, so why we aren’t pouring millions into a drive for discovery of some method of reducing our methane emissions is a source of wonderment to me. We could even contract out to high achieving scientific communities such as that in Israel. It’s that important.
which goes to show how brain dead you are.
Don’t North American livestock emit more GHGs than ours? There are a great deal more fucking cows in North America than here ! And in India. And in Europe. And in Africa. So why are ours worse for the planet?
So Einstein why are we being penalized for our cows and sheep?
Fuck we are living in a country filled with morons.
Pete, 89% of NOAA’s Surface Stations fail to meet their own specification for placement.
But if you feel the need to cite NOAA’s own defensive spin in claiming that a temperature sensors on asphalt and close to heating ventilation unit have no impact then go right ahead.
Kris, yes, that is exactly the case. Some emissions actually cause cooling before they cause warming. Think of nature’s clouds.
That must be one big ‘cloud’ to have resulted in 10 years of cooling, Luc.
So when exactly is this ‘cooling trend’ going to stop, Luc?
Do you or you experts have any idea, or will we only know once we arrive?
And which of the IPCC computer models predicted the last ten years of cooling?
And I mean ahead of time, not retrospectively.
Andrei, I don’t know the US’s livestock emissions, but what I do know is that as a country we have the highest percentage of emissions from livestock. I checked over what I wrote above and I can’t see how to express it more clearly. Perhaps you would like to read it again and let me know if it is still not clear.
Kris, who said anything about clouds causing the current cooling trend. Why don’t you take the time and go through the IPCC reports yourself. After all, you seem to know the Bible back to front so a piddly 400-odd page report shouldn’t be beyond you.
Andrei, I don’t know the US’s livestock emissions, but what I do know is that as a country we have the highest percentage of emissions from livestock.
You fucking moron the reason why we “as a country we have the highest percentage of emissions from livestock” is because we don’t’ have much heavy industry and we don’t generate much of our power with fossil fuels.
Our emissions are diddly and diddly per capita as well.
Never the less we will send money to countries with much higher per capita emissions, such as China under this fuck witted scheme.
For those who don’t blindly believe the NOAA is part of some faceless conspiracy theory and are concerned about reports of risinf ocean temperatures (which has an effect on sea levels through thermal expansion) might like to look at this graph:
Q. How has the poor exposure biased local temperatures trends?
A. A peer-reviewed study specifically quantified the potential bias in trends caused by poor
station exposure (Peterson, 2006). The analysis examined only a small subset of stations – all
that had their exposure checked at that time – and found no bias in long-term trends.
Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising
rapidly during the last 50 years?
A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and
breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and
river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier
in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. And a multitude of
species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in
mountainous areas, upward as well.
Scientists. Peer reviewed. Supported by observations.
Anthony Watts. Studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology. It is unclear whether he graduated.
Hurf, all media can be suspect, that’s why it’s worth cross checking with multiple sources. Would you rather I linked to an ABC poll which says the same thing?
What about this one, similar result: Fox News poll
More Americans have a negative view of Palin than have a positive one. While 38 percent say they have a favorable opinion of her, 51 percent have an unfavorable view.
Don’t worry, Peteypoos, I’m sure you can pull out some SOURCECHECK DO-DO-DO about how Dr Nicholas Von Bleurgh is being paid off by EVIL BIG OIL and that they only way we can save ourselves is by submitting ourselves to Mother Gaia and instituting car-free days.
Andrei, you have anger management as well as comprehension problems. You should get treatment.
Just as an aside, the point is not our total emissions as a percentage of global emissions (tiny) but to be seen to be doing our bit and not freeloading.
And I share your reservations about the current schemes but you need to come up with something other than mere ranting.
This lot of fuckwits have more tangents than Brian. Was that his mother’s fault?
Fuck off, but how shall we fuck off?
Brian just wanted the cheesemakers to have rights
“I love that Delirium drags out the WaPo, despite the fact it’s been shown to be a piece of shit multiple times.”
Its just one more example of the kind of ignorance that underpins Progressive ideas. They’re so stupid and unknowing they actually do think that we will be impressed by shit written in the Washington Post. They know nothing of the scorn that publication attracts outside the ever decreasing circle of progressivism. Its the same dated ignorance that underpins all their beliefs.
CLIMATE CHANGE, GLOBAL WARMING & METEOROLOGY
* Scientist: Arctic Ocean to Be Ice-Free in Summer
* Texas Scorched by Worst Drought in 50 Years
* Huge Dust Cloud Circled World in 13 Days
* Bill Gates Joins Project to Tame Hurricanes
* Scientists: Rich Should Pay More for Global Warming
* Global Recession Cuts Down on Global Warming
* Global Warming May Be Slowing America’s Winds
* U.N.: Nature Best at Handling Climate Change
Spud is a reincarnated ‘Max Headroom”
Max never grew up either
After doing some research – ‘heh’.I was thinking something along the lines of something a Labour staffer programmed to automatically generate approval for a post, but he talks back…
an extract: Over the past two decades, studies in western and southern Hudson Bay show that polar bears are growing thinner, that undernourished females are having smaller litters, and that females are giving birth to lighter cubs that do not survive as well.
A site that has a good Q&A sort of ‘index’ for this stuff is http://www.skepticalscience.com, is pretty well done, lots of links to papers/official sources and all that jazz.
computer climate models do a reasonable job of predicting the present
What is the temperature variation over the last 50 years or so and what is the margin of error in the predictions?
Unfortunately, I don’t have any nicely potted statistics to give you. The book I’ve got shows a picture from the IPCC showing that models that include anthropogenic forcings match observations much better than models that do not — but the reference for the picture is a dead link. You could try poking through here, though: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf
Of course, there are a number of different models and the IPCC tries to combine the results, which does not necessarily work. If you really want to know, you’ll have to dig through the references in the above chapter, to see what the people who made the models have published.
Luc, are you willing or able to spell out to us in $ terms and in human terms, the implications of your position? e.g.
What targets do you suggest NZ adopt?
How much in $ will it cost NZ to adopt such?
Who will receive those $?
How many employers will be consequently affected, broken down by industry?
To what extent – e.g. which will go completely broke, which will be unable to employ a single person for x years, which will be able to carry on as usual?
Don’t worry if you’re unable to be completely accurate, as I know this is impossible. However, as you’ve clearly given this dilemma plenty of thought with respect to whether it actually exists, I’m expecting you’ll have given equal thought time to the practical implications of implementing the plan you’re advocating, so looking forward to your facts and figures here, in considerable detail.
Er Luc, the topic is: what are the implications of what you’re advocating.
You either don’t know, or you refuse to tell us because they’re grossly unpalatable.
There doesn’t seem to be a third alternative.
Unless I’m wrong, why not just STFU until you do know, because that knowledge in specific and clear detail is really the pre-requisite to any particular course of action we adopt, isn’t it.
reid, I have addressed your question above and in earlier posts. What I have been doing here is combating the deniers. If you recognise that there is a AGW problem, that’s good and I would like to hear what you have to say regarding the solutions.
But my general feeling is it will all be too little and too late to avoid major, and for some catastrophic, change. As far as predictions go, it’s a bit like the eternal war dictum: the battle plan is the first casualty of war.
And the second casualty is so often encapsulated by the dictum: STFU.
I would say same to you but I am much too courteous for that – besides, I’ve already used it on Hurfy
computer climate models do a reasonable job of predicting the present
What is the temperature variation over the last 50 years or so and what is the margin of error in the predictions?
Unfortunately, I don’t have any nicely potted statistics to give you. The book I’ve got shows a picture from the IPCC showing that models that include anthropogenic forcings match observations much better than models that do not
The graph on page 600 looks by eye to have errors of 0.6 deg C for a rise of 0.7 deg C over 100 years. Awesome, nice to see those models ‘improving’.
But my general feeling is it will all be too little and too late to avoid major, and for some catastrophic, change. As far as predictions go, it’s a bit like the eternal war dictum: the battle plan is the first casualty of war.
Awesome Luc, you’ve convinced me, where do I sign up?
The great prophet Algore (All credits be to him)™ is a member, along with 99 other notables including Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Mikhail Gorbachevm, Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist, Sir Crispin Tickell – Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, The Dalai Lama, Stephen Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports, Bill Gate, Bill Clinton and others.
This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.
It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?
It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.
New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.
The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation
Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.
So the Club Of Rome folks are not flakes. They are heavy hitters, and way back in 1972 they were openly promoting the idea that conjuring up threats and fears would help them bring about change to our global governance.
an extract: Over the past two decades, studies in western and southern Hudson Bay show that polar bears are growing thinner, that undernourished females are having smaller litters, and that females are giving birth to lighter cubs that do not survive as well.
If that were an answer to the question of are polar bear populations decreasing? It would not be a good one for global warming.
Polar Bear populations should increase with global warming as their food sources flourish. It’s actually a pain in the ass for animal life when it is freezing cold
And in fact this interpreation matches the temperature record, Polar Bear population in the 70’s ~5,000, today ~25,000. Global temperature has risen 0.6 deg C over this time.
It’s a real shame that we are lucky enough to live in what will be the warmest climate of man’s recorded history and have people spoiling it for everyone running around yelling ‘the sky is falling’ as the crops grow better than ever before and as sickness and death from cold reaches new lows.
They are a very, very young species and as such, unproven by nature. I don’t think they have even been around through a complete ice age/interglacial cycle. There is every chance that they might not make it even if man did not exist. They actually evolved in Europe, not the arctic, and have retreated there with the ice.
And another thing abour polar bears: did you know that they like to attack people while they take a shit? If I did the same thing, I would expect to be killed. The bears have it coming. Bastards.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
- Dr Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General
Reading up on Maurice Strong thanks to your heads up, getstaffed. Many connections to Western Maoists living in China. Unnerving stuff. When you go deeply into the connections and the history, you can see environmentalism and socialism skipping merrily along hand in hand.
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
Under-the-radar review of MPs’ perks
By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post
Last updated 05:00 18/11/2009
MPs’ perks are about to come under fresh scrutiny as a high-powered review quietly gets under way.
The review is taking place as MPs are embroiled in controversy over the use of taxpayer money for perks, including travel by themselves and their spouses. It is required by law after every election, meaning MPs had no control over its timing.
But it was officially confirmed in a statement by Speaker Lockwood Smith only yesterday, after the review committee had already met for the first time and despite it being widely known that former speaker Sir Doug Kidd had been appointed to lead it.
The appointment of Sir Doug, an MP of 24 years standing, is controversial – the last review was headed by an outsider, businessman John Goulter.
Mr Goulter’s 2007 report angered MPs when it recommended an overhaul of the perks system and questioned spouses getting free travel on the taxpayer. Many of his recommendations were ignored.
Sir Doug said yesterday he was not going to discuss the review and one of the first decisions the committee had made was not to talk to the media.
He also declined to comment on whether it was appropriate for a former MP to head the review. “I’m not going to enter into discussion on that … You will have to judge things by the result.” He is being assisted by economist Philip Barry.
The review comes as MPs are under more scrutiny than ever before since a series of scandals over perks, including their accommodation allowances and travel subsidies for overseas trips.
ACT leader and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide has paid back more than $20,000 used when he took his girlfriend, Louise Crome, on trips to Hawaii and Europe.
Finance Minister Bill English has also repaid money claimed in ministerial accommodation allowances on his family home.
At the weekend, Prime Minister John Key did not rule out asking Dr Smith to look at revamping MPs’ perks, saying there was “merit” in the idea. But a spokesman for Mr Key said yesterday that it was not the prime minster’s intention to do so at the moment.
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei, who has called for an independent review of MPs’ allowances and perks, said she was comfortable with a former Speaker and MP heading the review.
It was useful to have someone in charge who understood the system and how Parliamentary Service operated.
It had been seven years since Sir Doug had been in Parliament so she did not believe he would be too close to the process.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:37 am
What will happen with New Zealands ETS now?
Farmers, greenies and Nats back ETS exemption
16 Nov, 2009 12:58 PM
An unlikely trio of farm groups, the Humane Society and The Nationals are all publicly backing the Federal Government’s decision to permanently exclude agriculture from its emissions trading scheme.
The decision came as a result of Climate Change Minister Penny Wong’s on-going negotiations with her Liberal counterpart Ian Macfarlane, as they try to reach consensus on a package acceptable to both sides of politics.
“There’s obviously other things on their list,” Sen Wong said. “We have said to them – economically responsible, environmentally effective. They are the tests we’ll apply.
“But in terms of agriculture, this is an offer that is made by the Government on an issue that we know is important to the Opposition because we are serious about getting this legislation through.”
Sen. Wong said that while farmers were excluded from having to reduce emissions, they would be able to sell credits for offsets they create via soils or forestry.
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/political/farmers-greenies-and-nats-back-ets-exemption/1677799
November 17th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Doug
So showing the whole farce up for what it is, a market in hot air.
excluding one group but allowing them to trade!
November 17th, 2009 at 7:54 am
With thanks to Crusader Rabbit.
The National Party is determined to passing climate change legislation despite a deadlocked select committee report and complaints that taxpayers could carry a $100 billion burden. It is working on a deal with the Maori Party to secure support to get the bill through.
In return Maori would be given preferential treatment and allowed to grow trees on DOC land at no cost, harvesting them for carbon credit profits.
The votes of 56,000 racists, separatists, and fools could send New Zealand into more debt for generations to come, to overturn the principle of colour-blind lawmaking, and to place an enormous burden on the productive people who actually earn the money to pay for this insanity.
Where is the much vaunted leadership of John Key? How the incompetent Smith can be left to ram this bill through Parliament and impoverish us all?
November 17th, 2009 at 7:55 am
So John Key’s National Party is selling some of all our birthright, the conservation estate namely, our land and trees and the trade on them to some Maori Iwi’s but not all.
Where will it stop?
We voted out The Labour Party to stop nanny state and troughing especially kowtowing to Maoridom and have all of us represented.
As for the sunset clause to up their settlements is they proportionately get overtaken by other tribes….
November 17th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Doug, here’s how I think it will play out.
What will happen is that farming here will get similar exemptions, as will Maori. The average NZers doesn’t know or care.
The scheme will start and, importantly, give our politicians bragging right in their quest for a bigger trough at the UN.
The average taxpayer and business owner will start paying and never stop.
There will be rorts leading to establishment of a monitoring commission which itself will cost millions.
Opposition parties will jump in and use the ETS as a battering ram against the incumbent, but then switch to supporting it once in office – themselves interested in the UN trough. A bit like Nick Smith has done.
The average taxpayer and business owner will continue paying.
The vast sums of NZ money sent to Russia or wherever will have precisely nil impact on the environment, but we’ll be forced to continue with that and, if any subsequent treaty like the one proposed for Copenhagen, is adopted, we’ll be subjected to a global wealth transfer tax which we’re not able to opt out of
Meanwhile, NZers just sigh and observe “Ah well, it’s all ok. If I could just win lotto my life would be ok”. Doh!
November 17th, 2009 at 8:11 am
“In return Maori would be given preferential treatment and allowed to grow trees on DOC land at no cost, harvesting them for carbon credit profits.”
Don’t forget: “It also includes a beefed up home insulation package for the low paid, predominantly Maori, and a Treaty of Waitangi clause in the Government’s emissions trading legislation.”
November 17th, 2009 at 8:22 am
I think this is a major misstep by National, far too rushed and ill-considered for the sake of reaching a deadline that doesn’t matter. If they carry on with this like this it will be a major embarrassment.
Not too late to scrap it and start again properly. Smith may be tainted – if he is not able to work with Labour on it they should find someone who will.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Who in their right mind in 21st century New Zealand is going to try and develop a new Industry.
Trying to will become an exercise in futility – you take all the risks do all the hard work but all the fruits of your initiative and labour will be sucked up by non productive troughers as you buy your carbon credits not to mention paying the government their cut in the absorbatant taxes they already take.
A fast track ticket to third worldom.
Are National so clueless that they don’t see this? Apparently so.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Stuff.co headlines an article on “A sweetheart deal for iwi … to push through climate change legislation” but does not mention this figure, as far as I can see, in the item. However, having heard not so long ago of the trillions projected to be the future cost of superannuation, when will anyone decide we are getting a little out of our depth financially?
November 17th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Lets see now. We are being royally shafted by National. What could Keys next career move be? Well we have uncle Helen ‘redristributing’ wealth for the UN, Tony Blair picked as Presdent of the EU, perhaps Key is in line for the role of president of the pacific version of the EU all positions of course are ‘appointed’ not elected and that will leave Obambi available for head of new World government that would explain his grovelling around the world. Have you noticed he has got the ‘deep bow’ to the Saudi and Japanese monarchs down to a fine art.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Once in a blue moon style event. LA Times gives favourable coverage to Conservative-
—————————————————
At age 20, Hannah Giles is a rock star of conservative activism. She shot onto the national scene in September after posing as a prostitute at ACORN offices around the country, where she secretly videotaped employees who appeared to give her advice on tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution.
Outrage over the recordings led Congress to cut federal funding for the community organizing group.
Giles credits the Young America’s Foundation — the group that put on the conference — with inspiring much of her political action.
Two years ago, she said, she was just a laid-back surfer kid from Miami when a friend got her to attend a foundation event in Washington, D.C. That, she said, was where she converted to conservatism.
In her lecture about how to take down liberal organizations and expose what she called media corruption, Giles on Friday sought to stir others to action. “Above all, attack, attack, attack,” she said, quoting Republican consultant Roger Stone. “Never defend.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-young-conservatives15-2009nov15,0,1837509.story
You right wingers reading this- remember that last piece of advice:
“Above all, attack, attack, attack, never defend.”
November 17th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Mike King is in the USA …
Undercover Video Shows Pig Farm Employees Allegedly Abusing Pigs
Monday, November 16, 2009
Undercover video exposes disturbing treatment of animals at the Country View Family Farms in central Pennsylvania.
CHICAGO — A disturbing video released exclusively to Fox News by the animal rights group Mercy for Animals (MFA) shows a string of alleged abuses at one of the nation’s largest pig farms, including footage of employees picking up baby pigs and tossing them like footballs.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:37 am
“With thanks to Crusader Rabbit.”
You’re damn right there Manolo. One of the few NZ blogs that actually tells it the way it is. Thanks KG for your courage and your honesty and your hard work.
http://crusader-rabbit.blogspot.com/
November 17th, 2009 at 8:40 am
When unaffordable superannuation and ACC go ‘up in smoke’ will free Maori afforestation be able to cover the ETS credits?
November 17th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Attack, attack, attack. Never defend.
Divide, divide, divide. Never mend.
Abuse, abuse, abuse. No good friend.
Negative until the bitter end.
Appeal, appeal, appeal to fellow nuts.
Popular support left in the dust.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:24 am
I see Tim Murphy at the Herald has decided to take on Catus Kate.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10609625
Time for a super sized popcorn and comfy chair. Anyone want to run a sweep on how long before they’re hosing Tim out of the woodwork?
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/
Gotta love blood sports.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Murray- note the Herald losers are too damn dumb to even put links in their story? Useless pricks.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I think he just didn’t want to allow people to get Kates version of events Red.
Tim’s The Media, he doesn’t have to answer to anyone else.
Thing is he just took a nurf bat to a gun fight and he doesn’t even know it.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Not because they’re too dumb (they have hyperlinks elsewhere). It’s deliberate. By limiting their outgoing links they can conserve their pagerank mana. Keeping it pure for their own sites and friends.
Cactus Kate’s original post reads like a straw-man kicking contest. Based on the false premise that in the past the media were fearless crusaders who threw legal caution to the wind at every opportunity. Twas never thus.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:54 am
“I think he just didn’t want to allow people to get Kates version of events Red.”
Yeah. Just more cowardice from the corrupt, dying and decrepit establishment that the newspaper business has become since it fell so completely under the control of the Progressives.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:59 am
And in the latest PC bullshit that makes my blood boil!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1228173/Lesbian-women-make-better-parents-says-Government-adviser.html
So pleased we got rid of Labour over here if that is what they are getting over there!
November 17th, 2009 at 10:01 am
If they wanted to try that on, they wouldn’t have named Kate’s blog in the first sentence. There probably aren’t many internet users who can’t use Google.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:06 am
In other news Shire Network News has interviewed Ian Wishart on why New Zealand is so damned PC and the issue of media bias is covered. Along with global warming a why Wishart never gets reviewed even though he keeps getting on the top seller lists.
http://www.snnsite.com/snn-podcast/podcast/128-174-podcast-asks-why-new-zealand-is-so-damned-pc
November 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am
“So pleased we got rid of Labour over here if that is what they are getting over there!”
Get off the grass. National are just as bogged down in this Progressive shit as Labour. The way out of this mess is to reject all encumbent politicians, National or Labour or anyone who has been in parliament a long time.
Why?
Because they let it happen.
They stood there and they either preached their damn PC bullshit, or they listened to it without voicing any opposition, and they, National and Labour and the rest, have taken our money, and they have given it to those who would destroy us and our society.
..and they are still doing it right now as I write.
Throw all of the encumbents and their disciples out. They’re all useless.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:13 am
“Along with global warming a why Wishart never gets reviewed even though he keeps getting on the top seller lists.”
Simply because they’re a corrupt gang of cowards.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:14 am
How? Who will we vote for?
November 17th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Piss off with the endless questions troll. I’m not here to fill the voids in your vacuous mind.
A little research on what is happening in the US (with Tea Party candidates) will do the trick. Instead of lamely asking infantile questions all the time, get off your useless arse and find the answers for yourself.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Once we’ve thrown out the useless incumbents, what then? Another election? Will you be standing?
November 17th, 2009 at 10:30 am
That’s pathetic spin. Foregone revenue has to be replaced. How is it replaced? With debt of course.
As for applying a different set of assuptions, try this on Nick Smith: abandon the whole scam in the knowledge that doing so is the best thing for NZ despite to costing you your UN ambitions.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Malcolm, when someone is committed to attack attack attack, never defend, you won’t get any practical or feasible solutions offered. But I think you know that.
The Redbaiter Tea Party approach is to attack attack attack any potential candidate who might have the slightest whiff of non-compliance with their views. Anyone who doesn’t want to lock up all potential criminals, anyone who thinks women should be able to be something other than submissive wives, anyone who dares thinking of using the left side of their brain, they are all attacked.
This approach may work in the US, in some cases (it failed in NY-23). But here it would mean that the main parties would have to let the Redbaiter Tea Party dictate to them what candidates to stand. And the electorate would have to buy into it. Maybe if they are attacked enough they will roll over. They don’t sell Tui in the US.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I’m standing in the main street of Levin watching an awful lot of votes the National party will lose ride past on thier bikes. Good on these guys and girls for being proactive.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:44 am
You were saying Pete?
Denigrate and ridicule, that is the strategy of the left.
Retard.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:46 am
More lies Pete. Democracy does not mean you shouldn’t have an opinion and express it vigourously. That is entirely different from ‘dictate’.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Great idea RB, can start with dick whacking Smith and his demented followers. With a bit of luck and the grace of God it looks like Copenhagen will be nothing more then a glorified piss up. As Pete says, why the rush. Are the climate change tossers in the Nats that desperate to impress the socialist fools in Europe?. It seems to me that in one breath Shonkey thinks the whole thing is going to fall over in the next breath he saying the circus must continue. When are these pricks going to grow some balls and call it for what it is, a fucking con.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:48 am
That’s a cowardly lie. RedBaiter gave me a very practical solution. He told me to piss off.
And he seems to have taken his own advice. Shame ’cause I was interested in this New Zealand Tea Party idea.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:49 am
For those interested in how Americans fed up with a government that has grown arrogant and unrepresentative are dealing with the issue-
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6722358.html
“anyone who thinks women should be able to be something other than submissive wives,”
You’re never going to stop with the lying are you Pete. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn are far from being “submissive wives”. Thats just more of the gross propaganda and dishonesty that characterizes everything you ever say here.
They support traditional values, and you can lie about it as much as you want of course, but traditional values has never meant “submissive wives”. You’re just full of lies, cowardice and deceit Pete. Grossly repugnant.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:50 am
“..Yeah. Just more cowardice from the corrupt, dying and decrepit establishment that the newspaper business has become since it fell so completely under the control of the Progressives..”
‘progressives’ like murdoch..?..packer..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Sonny, you may have missed the comment from your fellow Redbaiter Tea Party member here:
Not that it is possible to force it, but even campaigning on something like that would not be popular with a lot of women – neither would it be likely to be supported by those men who have progressed from the stone age.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
You really are thick Pete. Because there is nothing wrong with the patriachal family unit.
More denigration and ridicule.
If you are serious about what you say Pete then you are continuously reading something that isn’t there. And it is becuase of your fearful, pea sized mind.
I know many, many woman that are very happy with the idea of a man going and earning a decent living for his family and are perfectly happy to keep house for a decent one. I don’t know where you live but isn’t much like what I see around me.
Saying this does not mean I think woman cannot have a career or that the roles cannot be reversed. But if you try to have a career and raise a family something has to give, one of them has to be moderated. And the patriachal family model has been historically the best way of managing this and nothing has gone wrong with that model.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:58 am
“..When are these pricks going to grow some balls and call it for what it is, a fucking con..”
you are the ‘fucking con’ bloody hands bob..
you are peddling a cancer/disease-causing poison (to humans),,..
under the guise of a ‘healthy product’..
just exactly who is the ‘fucking con’..?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Why specifically patriarchal? You say the roles can be reversed. Wouldn’t a matriarchal model work just as well?
It seems that what you’re saying works about the model is that there are two parents, one of whom works and the other runs the house.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:02 am
I’m fairly sure more than 56,000 people voted for the National Party …
November 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Late start today Philu. Too stoned to get up before 10:30?
November 17th, 2009 at 11:04 am
“..Denigrate and ridicule, that is the strategy of the left..”
you don’t help…being such knobs..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
“Not that it is possible to force it, but even campaigning on something like that would not be popular with a lot of women”
Funny ain’t it then that the uprising against the Progressive ideas you and your spikey haired lesbian or mush brained indoctrinated by Marxist feminist moron friends promote is being led by women.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am
His post morning drug daze raged out of control.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Why do Labour have to work with National on this issue? Labour’s ETS is already law. The next sectors enter the scheme in January.
National can work with:
– ACT: ACT don’t believe in climate change and want to scrap the whole thing. So that’s a non-starter.
– Greens: Greens want to strengthen the ETS. National want to weaken it.
– Maori: Well, that’s where we are at the moment.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am
The worm is turning in Australia at least.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2009/4435/
Now 50% (down 5% since August 2009) of Australians
Approve of Australia’s proposed Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme and
30% (up 3%) say “Concerns are exaggerated” about Global Warming
November 17th, 2009 at 11:11 am
“..Too stoned to get up before 10:30?..”
‘the boy’ and i were doing yoga at 6.30 am..
and of course..i have been compiling todays’ edition..
..of ‘the best newsite’..
http://www.whoar.co.nz/
(read by ‘the informed’..eh..?..you’d take a ‘pass’ on that..?..eh..?..)
14 stories/links have met the high standards so far..
usually..by the time i’m finished..there will be in the low twenties..
but as i say…it is for the open/inquiring/informed mind..eh..?
so..it probably wouldn’t be to your tastes..?..
..eh..?
shame ..!..(never mind..!..)
you just ‘carry on’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Pity DPF is in the other side of the world, otherwise I’d suggest creating a posting on the ETS and how National, abetted by the racist Maori Party, intend to shaft New Zealand with this absurd piece of legislation.
Didn’t National campaign on a “no more taxes” platform? Ah, the spineless Tories never disappoint.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Who aren’t popular with a lot of women.
Q. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin?
—Favorable– -Unfavorable–
NET Strongly NET Strongly
All 43 20 52 34
Men 48 20 46 29
Women 39 20 57 39
Q. If Palin runs for president in 2012, would you definitely vote for her, would you consider voting for her, or would you definitely not vote for her?
Definitely Would Definitely
would consider would not
All 9 7 53
Men 11 38 50
Women 8 36 55
http://tinyurl.com/yj4tex9
November 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
“..His post morning drug daze raged out of control…”
i should be so lucky..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Yawn… For every polll you produce, I can produce one that shows the opposite.
If Palin and Bachmann and the rest were not gaining traction, the left would not be in such abject diarrhoea stricken fear of them.
Your desperate and cowardly attempts to discredit them show your naked fear and your lack of argument.
Bachmann and others are showing your Progressive emperor up as a liar and fraud with no clothes, and with your media allies exposed as corrupt liars too, there is no way you can stop them.
Get a life you desperate despicable troll.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:31 am
FFS Ryan, are you and your ilk really this stupid and weak.
It is natural to split the roles of raising children and getting the food. Nature did this millions of years ago, hence men and women have different physical characteristics. Why are you so afraid of traditional sterotypes? They are not insulting or denigrating to anyone, and they do not stop a woman going out and doing anything she wants. For some f-ed up reason, you are more comfortable blindly lying about reality.
It is only recently that a significant number of modern jobs allow the physical differences to be ignored.
Get 100 average men and 100 average women to dig a ditch for a day and I guarantee the men will get further.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Funny how Lou Dobbs was paid $US8 million by CNN to back off on the story of Obama’s likely foreign birth and his illegitimate presidency.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am
“For some f-ed up reason, you are more comfortable blindly lying about reality.”
The Progressive disease.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:35 am
You’ve heard me bemoan the IPCC’s cherry-picking of datasets to support the United Nations Environmental Programme predetermined view that global warming will soon have us all living in a desert. (Not convinced of that assertion? Click the link and check out the symbolism on their report’s cover!)
So back to cherry-picking. I did some research and turned up this fascinating analysis: A Cherry-Picker’s Guide to Temperature Trends (down, flat–even up). If you’re even slightly curious/suspicious about the way trend analysis is report then read this in detail. Note the “Fig.2″ graph. This isn’t temperature trends over time; it’s the variation that is exposed by picking different starting points for trend analysis.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:36 am
“..If Palin and Bachmann and the rest were not gaining traction, the left would not be in such abject diarrhoea stricken fear of them..”
um..!,,no…
listen red..when you have rightwing pundits liike david brooks calling palin ‘a joke’..
and saying the republican rank and file will never vote palin is as the candidate..
(brooks sneeringly called her ‘a potential talkshow host’..(ouch..!..)
but hey..!..don’t let me stop you deluding yourself/getting over-excited..eh..?
btw..how is yr passion for orley taitz..?..and the ‘birthers’..?
(you’ve been fairly quiet on that lately..)
any updates..?
‘attack attack..!..never defend..!’..
eh..?
heh..!
just as well you don’t try to ‘defend’..eh..?
could get a bit tricky..eh..?
(and could you produce a link to just one of those polls..
..’showing just the opposite’.?
you wouldn’t want people to think you just make stuff up..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 11:39 am
More unsubstantiated, you won’t front up.
You should consider emigrating to the US, you seem much more passionate and hopeful about what is happening there.
And your deceit (ok, your attack attack attack) is showing again. I have no connection or alliance with any politician or media.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:46 am
getstaffed, not surprising you are fascinated by the analysis (cherry picked by you) by MasterResource “A free-market energy blog”. The links go straight back to big business advocacy.
To balance it why don’t you find some fascinating research that is backed by some big businesses who think they can make a buck out of climate change?
November 17th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“>.Get 100 average men and 100 average women to dig a ditch for a day and I guarantee the men will get further..”
how about jobs that require ‘brain’..blunt..?..
(you are from the ‘deep south’..aren’t you..?
it’s your ‘easy way’ with ‘the wimmens’-place’ that gives it away..
eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Offtopic… Every year the Oxford dictionaries try to gain publicity adding a whole lot of stupid words, or having “word of the year”. I don’t care if they add words, but I hate the fact it’s treated as a marketing tool. They try to find trendy words (e.g. “unfriend”) and release a press release that useless media outlets (all of them) will publish without editing in their “Oddstuff” section or, in NZ, usually on the front page.
If I ever buy a new dictionary (I’ll probably just google, or dictionary.com any word I don’t understand) I promise not to buy from Oxford.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Jobs and brains. Clearly neither are your areas of expertise.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Tristan,
They’re facing the fact that people have the internet on hand now to give them correct spellings and definitions. It’s an uphill battle for them.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:52 am
“..of ‘the best newsite’..
http://www.whoar.co.nz/
(read by ‘the informed’..eh..?..you’d take a ‘pass’ on that..?..eh..?..)
14 stories/links have met the high standards so far..”
All that hard work and posts . . . and not one comment . . .
damn . . .
but as i say…it is for the open/inquiring/informed mind..eh..?
so..it probably wouldn’t be to your tastes..?..
..eh..?
shame ..!..(never mind..!..)
you just ‘carry on’..eh..?
November 17th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Sonny,
I may not have been clear. I was asking you whether or not you think breadwinner/house-maintainer combinations are equally successful regardless of how those two roles are assigned today, when digging ditches is not the usual means of winning bread. You said nothing stops women being the breadwinners, but you didn’t specify if you thought that was as successful as men being the breadwinners.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Pete, feel free to comment or find fault with the analysis. Or just accuse me of bias – that appears an easier, altogether more comfortable response for you. As for the big business making big bucks, just google the climate profit Al Gore and see how his carbon-trading investments are working out. Nice little earner those.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Pete – Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax
I wonder if any of our polticians have hidden investments tied up with carbon trading?
November 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Sorry, harping I know. But check out Key’s comment this morning:
Key’s ETS has its origins in climate science that can’t agree models for historical, observed climate change, yet we’re asked to hand over billions of dollars based on what could happen by 2100? Anyone else see the irony here?
November 17th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
That is not my friggin point. You are choosing to debate something irrelevant. It is easy to find a woman (Cathy Freeman for example) that can beat a man at something (me over 800m). But women still breast feed and men don’t get pregnant yet, it is another arrogance of the progressives to think that we have undone millions of years of evolution in a few short decades.
You still live in la la land if you do not realise that plenty of the work that is done in this country is still physical, or do you think that all those buildings you spend your time in, and the food on your plate just appear out of nowhere?
The negatives of getting all namby pampy about refering to the patriachal family or rather the sterotype of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker is that young people today are less aware of how critical the decisions they are making are. A woman still needs to be thinking very clearly about whether the father of her children is going to stick around and be able to provide for his family, and a man needs to think clearly whether the mother of his children is going to stick around provide a stable home.
As the language from your types gets more and more muddy, the messages are becoming more and more muddy.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
We are paying for this asshole:
national radio is reporting that..
..federated farmers are really pissed off..
they say their exemptions until 2015 are ‘not enough’..
and they are now demanding .. exemptions forever..
(like the aussie farmers have just been given..)
nicholson says farmers ‘can’t stand the uncertainty’ of that 2015 exemption..
and he will be demanding the gummint give farmers that ..
..”..exemptions forever..”
(kinda breaks yr heart..knowing farmers are ’suffering that uncertainty’..
..eh..?..
poor luvvies..!)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
What pisses me off about this Ryan, is that it is the working classes who bear the brunt of this form of progressive muddle headedness. There are more important things than satisfying the intellectual sensibilities of progressives.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
And with the statement, all pretenders to Phool’s crown of the most supreme fuckwit on Kiwiblog were silenced into awe.
The bar for the most stupid statement on Kiwiblog had been raised even higher.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Sonny,
I’m just asking you to clarify. You said: “Saying this does not mean I think woman cannot have a career or that the roles cannot be reversed.”
I am just asking if, in saying this, you are saying that a “female breadwinner, male house-maintainer” family is as successful as the reverse.
I’m not debating anything, relevant or irrelevant. I’m just asking you to clarify what you said.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
You should know better than that Chthoniid.
I have noticed a worrying habit you are developing of replying to Phool.
I nearly did it myself today, before quickly deleting my post when I realised what I was doing.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Ryan,
On an individual case, yes. One of my brothers does this. Across society, no.
It is a trite and irrelevant question that leads me to believe you are thick.
Do you believe that there is a problem with a male breadwinner/female homemaker family?
November 17th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
ETS
I don’t understand, If agriculture is exempt……. If you are an orchard owner would you not be able to sell your credits for cash? or do the emmissions in manufacturing there fertilizers out way this. And if they don’t does it mean that because they are exempt that they cannot sell the credits they would build up?
November 17th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
So Geoffrey Palmer is vehemently opposed to democracy!!
“The Legislation Advisory Committee, chaired by former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, says the proposed public vote should not be allowed because it would contradict the fundamental purpose of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, which provided for non-binding referendums.”
(Today’s Herald) http://tinyurl.com/yg68qe5
Is it going to take actual revolution in this country before legislators and power brokers begin listening to what the majority want? This obfuscating load of bollocks from Palmer is an absolute joke. Trying to find some weasel word way to override the will of 80% + of the population is pathetic. Palmer needs to open his eyes and ears and realise that people are slowly but surely getting pissed off with the lack of response on major issues.
Re the march on Saturday, it is based around the anti smacking nonsense but has become much bigger than that. It is now about democracy and that is what I suspect the majority of the people will be there for. The turnout should be interesting.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Not sure why this gets up your goat Sonny. It started with the statement: The answer to crime is a more orderly and moral society, and that will only come from the restoration of the patriarchal family unit…
And you followed with Because there is nothing wrong with the patriachal family unit.
I don’t think anyone said there was anything wrong with the patriarchal family unit as one option (as long as both partners are happy with it as many are). But it doesn’t suit everyone and there are other types of family units that can work well too.
And sometimes the patriarchal family unit can go badly wrong, where the patriarch turns out to be an arsehole, the partner leaves him for the safety of herself and/or the kids, and the ex patriarch throws a hissy fit and assaults and sometimes kills because their position of power has been threatened.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
menace – “I don’t understand”
When it comes to the ETS there is nothing to understand, it is a tax grab and nothing else. One of the greatest rorts in history, right up there with the “window tax” and “wig tax” in England in the 16th/17th centuries.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Chthoniid, I’m sure you’ve seen these pics from the Times today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6918747.ece
Marvellous. Oddly when I saw them my mind thought about your pics, Kiwiblog, Phil, etc, all in the blink of an eye.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
@kaya: as you say , the march has become bigger.
The people of NZ have already agreed they have the right to smack for disciplinary purposes.
THe challenge is to make the government listen to the people of NZ.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
No, I don’t think there’s a problem with it. If it’s what people choose, it’s fine with me. But I’m sure you don’t think it inevitably works, just as you don’t think that fb/mh families inevitably don’t work (with your brother as an example of it working). And if both models work sometimes and not other times, there have to be other factors that go to making a successful family.
I don’t know anyone who has any particular aversion to either model – no one demanding men stay home, no one demanding men go out and work. I certainly think that a single-income family has advantages over double-income families, as one of the parents is at home to be more actively involved in their kids’ lives.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Very interesting story, and neat photos to match.
I guess the hippos explain why he took the girly-man approach of photographing from the river bank and not on a boat on the river
Seems you have to watch out for the vegans in the real world.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Swiftman lets not forget that farmers pay tax to. Do you think it’s only people who live in the big smoke that will have to pay, whether agricultural emissions are included or not farmers will still be paying. And why should Kiwi farmers be the only ones in the world to pay for agricultural emissions. I tell you why. The fucking socialists, including the brain dead Nats realised that their cut would just not be there unless they included agriculture. Thieving pack of bastards.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Ryan and Pete,
Single parent families are the single biggest factor in criminal offending, I expect they would be a big factor in welfare spending also.
The incidence of single parent families is increasing.
Are you able to identify a cause and a remedy for this issue?
November 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Chthoniid, hippos aren’t vegans, they eat meat and have been observed eating their own kind. They do not do this often but Geographic Channel ran a doco about Hippos killing and eating animals. ( The dark side of Hippos )
November 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
This is a dumb, infantile, pointless thing to add.
If the family unit is not patriarchal, does this then lessen the issue of any of the people involved being bad people?
November 17th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Dad’s horse on the farm when I was a kid loved killing sheep. It would stand by a fence and wait til the sheep came close to eat the grass. It would reach over, grab a mouthful of sheep and try to toss it into her paddock where she would stomp the sheep to death. She became dog tucker and spagehtti sauce.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Actually, as a model, the patriarchal family unit is terrible and dangerous. Especially when you compare it to say, a woman with kids fathered by several different low lives, with yet another low life sharing her bed and home. That model never goes wrong.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Ryan,
You are intellectualising and I do not disagree with the intellectual point. But the world is real life, not an intellectual problem.
People are malleable and easily influenced. Confusing the language and ignoring the majority for the sake of the (tiny) minority is wasteful.
You will probably find most of the instances of successful female led households in the middle and upper classes. But Johnny and Jane who leave school after school c (or whatever it is now) are taking their cues from the world around them and I think they are more confused (or casual in their decisions) now. They are better served by real world role models than all thinking they are going to be job-juggling supermums (and vice versa).
November 17th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Sonny,
I assume there are a great many interrelated causes, and as many possible solutions – some that come with their own problems:
1. Unprotected sex -> more available contraception, more sex education, discouragement of sex, contraception in the water supply, etc.
2. Social and cultural condemnation of abortion -> more available abortion, more acceptance of abortion, etc.
3. Fewer committed long-term relationships -> more support for newlyweds, more real and fictional role models for commitment (ie., revolutionise Shortland Street for a start), etc.
4. Less time for parents to do the work of raising their kids to be responsible -> raise minimum wage, raise benefits to families unable to maintain a full-time parent, etc.
5. Poor decisions made while drinking -> raise drinking age, ban alcohol completely, etc.
6. The list goes on…
What do you think the causes and possible solutions are?
November 17th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
One of the appeals of the crocodilians, is that you don’t get any mixed signals from crocodiles
November 17th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“..# Chthoniid (692) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
and of course..i have been compiling todays’ edition..
..of ‘the best newsite’..
And with the statement, all pretenders to Phool’s crown of the most supreme fuckwit on Kiwiblog were silenced into awe.
The bar for the most stupid statement on Kiwiblog had been raised even higher..”
point me at/show me a better daily round-up of local/international news..clintoiid…
and i’ll read it..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
http://news.google.co.nz/news?pz=0&hl=en&ned=nz
November 17th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Perhaps there needs to simply be more emphasis across the board that raising kids and maintaining a house is a full-time job, whether it’s performed by a father or a mother.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
The Alarmists headline:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/3070828/World-warming-brings-jellyfish-swarming
The alternatives:
Stuff grows better when its warmer.
Animal plagues still occurring, just like always.
Tens of thousands of fishermen use alarmist headlines to seek out government compensation.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Ryan,
And it is natural that the form that has taken for millions of years will be the first in peoples minds. No need to pretend we don’t see it.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Sonny,
It is natural that whatever people are programmed with by their society will be the first in people’s minds. But neither what has been done in the past nor the programming of society makes something good or right.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Families
Families
Families
Support business
Families
Families raise the people who make up our country, not governments and academics.
Modern western statistics are not inevitable, they represent how we choose to value our culture and its direction. In India and Asia amongst the emerging middle classes, family is paramount, much as it was during the ascendency of the west.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
So there is something wrong with male breadwinner/female homemaker? What is it? You need to talk to ‘gaia’ or god about it because thats who gave us the roles.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
A statement so vapid, yet so inflammatory; it should come with it’s own fire-extinguisher.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
There is not something wrong with it. There is something wrong with uncritically accepting it and rejecting the reverse simply because it is the way things have been in the past.
And regarding your solutions to the various possible causes of single-parent families, can you explain a little further how “families” is the solution?
November 17th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Suggesting that “we’ve always done it that way” is not a sufficient justification for something is inflammatory?
True enough. It led to all kinds of conflict when people were saying it about slavery or women’s suffrage.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
key just tried to get some reflected glory from the all whites victory..
and his speech was notable for being so crammed full of cliches..
it almost exploded..
(but he left out the classic..’on the day..sport was the winner!’..which i was disappointed about..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Perhaps, “we’ve always done it that way” is because it is best practise.
18yos clearly holding the value that ‘I must earn a decent, secure living to attract a decent wife and provide for a family’
or ‘I must choose a decent, secure man if I am to marry and have a family’ and sticking with those decisions.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Sonny, in a free society how do you make everyone be in a “family” (presumably structured how you like them to be).
BTW, I believe the best arrangement for bringing up kids is usually a family with mother and father partners with one or other being the main earner (or shared responsibility). But that is just my cultural bias. Not all cultures follow that strict model.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Possibly, but not necessarily, so it needs to be backed up with reasons for it being best practice.
Okay. How do you suggest these values are inserted/encouraged in children?
November 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
It’s a good statement, Ryan. Gets to the nub of a lot of issues. Vapid was probably the wrong word.
If you question why things are a certain way, people often assume you have something against that way. So they save time and go immediately on the defensive. It’s probably not an inefficient short-cut. A sort of mental “shoot first; ask and answer questions later”.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I see what you mean. Yes, that does seem to be the tendency, Malcolm.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Coming back to the actual definition of patriarchal:
Patriarchy is a social system in which the male is head of the household, having authority over women and children.
This isn’t just dad, mum and kids, it is not just who is the sole or main earner, it is male authority and ownership over the other people in the family. I don’t think that would be a very popular concept these days.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Nor is dairy farming but the income from that keeps you in the style of life to which you have become accustomed and will continue to do so until it is finally wrecked by Governmental parasitism.
I just checked it out, in the 1950s there were about three murders per annum in New Zealand – which is far far less than the number of children murdered by their “alternative” families in our enlightened age, let alone our murder rate even accounting for population increase.
Speaks for itself really
November 17th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
The most effective way would be to take all the progressives out to a field, shoot them and use as fertiliser (but not Phil Goff, he is too useful).
But more practically, just do it. Find a job, find a partner, stay together, raise a family, then repeat.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Except when they give that cheesy grin. But apparently you should never be taken in by it.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
How so?
Lead by example? But plenty of people are doing just that. Our “problem” citizens and youths aren’t paying attention.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
But I thought all you progressives had their ear?
All I know is that I’ll be keeping my kids away from your kids and other ‘problem’ citizens kids.
I can’t fix all those other kids but I can sure as hell look after mine, and that is my part of the deal.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Has anyone noticed the similarity between the White House recently announced “Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth” and the NZ Govt “Job Summit” ?
Perhaps Key has made quite an impression on Obama (or his advisors)!
November 17th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
So you don’t have any practical suggestions Sonny? Like pretty much everyone else. It’s easy to have ideals, far less easy to make everyone agree and follow them.
Patriarchy isn’t an ideal for most people.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Well Key seems to be bowing to every interest group here, so maybe you are right and that is why Obowma all but knocked his head on the floor to Akihito.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Anyone else a little bewildered by that ‘Spud’ character at Red Alert?
November 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Don’t feel bad, we all make mistakes.
Well, sure, but you asked me about solutions to the problem at large, and I asked you for the same.
Trying to indoctrinate kids with your particular ideal of society would be a pretty mammoth nanny-state undertaking, of which I’m no great fan. I’m not even sure how you’d go about it. More regulation of TV shows so that kids see positive role models of the sort you suggest, teachers telling kids what is the right and wrong kind of family, perhaps tax incentives and legal penalties for adopting different family models, state-funded booklets explaining what kind of family a good New Zealand citizen has.
Combined, perhaps these measures could get that ideal into kids’ heads. Sounds pretty terrifying, though.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
That weird giraffe which went around schools in a trailer to promote – i forget – could be re-trained.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Whanau, the Two-Parent Family Kakapo.
Kids, be like me,
And don’t be a fool.
If you’re gonna bone,
Here’s the golden rule:
Put a ring on her finger
And get yourself a job,
Cos crime and social problems
Are caused by drunken slobs.
Hey!
(chorus)
Whanau! Whanau!
The Two-Parent Kakapo!
Whanau! Whanau!
Get married before you blow!
(one child) Your loaaaaaaaaad!
November 17th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
And THAT is my cue to stop drinking Red Bull today.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I used to drink that stuff when I was programming. Once the foam starts coming out your mouth and you start spitting on your colleagues – but carry on talking anyway – it’s all over for the day.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
If that giant government scheme (bonus points for being fronted by a Kakapo) isn’t my kind of social engineering, nothing is…or ever will be.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
“Patriarchy isn’t an ideal for most people.”
..and who the fuck would you be to speak for most people??
November 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Sort of obvious, isn’t it, the people speak for themselves. How many patriarchal families are there?
November 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
..because that’s RedBaiter’s job.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Better wisen up dumbarse. Its patriarchial families that are having all the kids, and they’re not in the west.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
If you are a fan of patriarchal families maybe you could go and live there.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Wow- you changed the subject.
Why?
In fact, you’re bringing them out here by the dozen. What’s happened to your famous “liberal” tolerance for other cultures?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
There you go, deceitful lying again, I’m not involved in immigration, nor in airlines.
And you seem a bit confused. You want all families here to be patriarchal, but you don’t want patriarchal families to have kids or to come here?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
[Quote: Sonny Blount] Denigrate and ridicule, that is the strategy of the left.
Retard. [/quote]
November 17th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Ryan,
You don’t need a government program for everything. Last time I looked up the word ’solution’ it didn’t say ‘when you have a government program for it’.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I’m just throwing around suggestions to fill the gap left by your “I’ll just keep my kids away from them” solution, as ways to implement your “kids have to start valuing family” solution.
Do you have any better ideas?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“And you seem a bit confused.”
That’s rich. You haven’t said anything that made sense since your gaffe over the number of patriarchal families, and the absurd claim that you speak for “most people”.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
stephen (3148) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Anyone else a little bewildered by that ‘Spud’ character at Red Alert?
Anyone else bewildered by Red Alert?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I didn’t claim I speak for most people, that is you deceitfully taking what I posted and twisting it with your own lies. Your gaffe.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Fuck Ryan,
That is a solution. What you do every day and how you raise your kids matters a hell of a lot more than any government programs. The end result is the society we see around us. It’s just so pervasive that perhaps you miss it.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
What I mean is that there are already two-parent families raising their kids well in New Zealand, and have been for some time, and it doesn’t seem to be rubbing off on our “problem” folk.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2120
Just a little something for you deniers out there. It basically says that by the time the IPCC reports come out, they are already out of date.
Understandably, we are now gathering data in ever-increasing quantity and accuracy as the scientific community understand the need for hard evidence if we to combat anthropomorphic climate change.
Also understandably, this evidence will not sway the ranters and haters out there who use the anonymity of the blogosphere to indulge their fantasies but I am sure the odd real person here would appreciate being updated on the very latest thinking.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Luc, aside from the debate about how much humans contribute to climate change, do you support a global cap and trade/ETS type of scheme as the response to it? Would you support 2% of our GDP being contributed to a global climate change regulatory organisation? I just don’t see how taxing individuals can possibly make a difference to climate change.
I’m also curious as to what we’re going to do to reduce the water vapour in the atmosphere, which is apparently more of a problem than CO2. How do we break the water cycle? We clearly need to stop evaporation ASAP or we’ll drown in our beds.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Getstaffed, I think you are on to something about the ETS and the selling and buying of carbon credits. They did it in Los Angeles for awhile, meanwhile smog went up, and a lot of companies got rich and the small ones just couldn’t afford keeping up with them and went out of business. I am going to look into it. Usually if you follow the money trail it makes sense and it would make sense for Nick Smith lying to the public while in opposition and then changing overnight. . I wonder if John Key has some investments in the carbon trading scheme. This whole thing is starting to make sense now. Perhaps Wishart should study John Key’’s net worth while this ETS scam is put into place.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
The title:
“As Effects of Warming Grow, U.N. Report is Quickly Dated”
Doesn’t mention anthropogenic anywhere. Warming is expected Luc, humans or no.
From wikipedia:
Interglacial optimum
An interglacial optimum, or climatic optimum of an interglacial, is the period within an interglacial that experienced the most ‘favourable’ climate that occurred during that interglacial, often during the middle part. The climatic optimum of an interglacial follows, and is followed by, phases that are within the same interglacial and that experienced a less favourable climate (but nevertheless a ‘better’ climate than during the preceding/succeeding glacials). During an interglacial optimum, sea levels rise to their highest values, but not necessarily exactly at the same time as the climatic optimum.
The preceding interglacial optimum occurred during the Late Pleistocene Eemian Stage, 131–114 ka. During the Eemian the climatic optimum took place during pollen zone E4 in the type area (city of Amersfoort, Netherlands). Here this zone is characterized by the expansion of Quercus (Oak), Corylus (Hazel), Taxus, Ulmus (Elm), Fraxinus (Ash), Carpinus (Hornbeam), and Picea (Spruce). During the Eemian Stage sea level was about 8 meters higher than today and the water temperature of the North Sea was c. 2°C higher than at present.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I had a look at your link though. I liked this comment (among others)
IMHO, it should have explained that “outdated” really means: The IPCC’s major conclusion — that warming of the past 50 years is “very likely” (= 90-99% sure) anthropogenic — is no longer valid, being based on the misuse of inadequate climate models. It has also been falsified by recent observations.
(Prof) S. Fred Singer
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Posted by S. Fred Singer on 09 Jun 2009
November 17th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“climate modelers have continued to feed them into their supercomputers.”
This isn’t observational science Luc. It’s unverified computer modeling (akin to astrology as far as scientific disciplines go).
November 17th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
The computer models are improving all the time as they are refined and more data becomes available.
The Singer model is still sewing his seeds of contraryism.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Sonny, no-one says natural warming isn’t expected at times. What is frustrating here is that all the sensible questions, and even some not-so-sensible ones, are answered in the IPCC reports. For example, the reports detail uncertainties and incomplete data in great detail. Once again, here is the link for the IPCC report that addresses most of the queries raised by pseudo-scientists and skeptical scientists, which are almost universally not climatologists and are most definitely a dwindling minority.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm
This is an extract pertaining to your earlier post. And it also explains how modeling fits into the science. You know, the first trip to the moon only existed in modeling until it actually occurred. Global warming has already occurred and recovered data is now feeding into the models projecting the future. I urge you to look carefully at this freely available information.
It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is consistent with the scientifi c understanding
of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in green- house gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity. Climate models provide a suitable tool to study the various influences on the Earth’s climate. When the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases are included in the models, as well as natural external factors, the models produce good simulations of the warming that has occurred over the past century. The models fail to reproduce the observed warming when run using only natural factors. When human factors are included, the models also simulate a geographic pattern of temperature change around the globe similar to that which has occurred in recent decades. This spatial pattern, which has features such as a greater warming at high northern latitudes, differs from the most important patterns of natural climate variability that are associated with internal climate processes, such as El Niño.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Thats the point Pete, they are improving. ie. there is not ONE definitive model yet.
Currently a better model is to look at the past and extrapolate it to the future. Any 10 year old can look at the graphs on this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
And tell you it’s gonna get a lot colder in the next few thousand years.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Pete, there’s a article about climate models here. They refer to MAGICC (latest version was developed under a grant from the EPA) which can be downloaded from here.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
About half of the words in that sentence are true.
Astrology is a poor comparison because astrology consistently fails to predict anything. Whereas, as I understand it, computer climate models do a reasonable job of predicting the present, given historical data. Not perfectly, of course (and you should be suspicious of any model that does perfectly model known conditions), but well enough that they’re worth looking at.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
this is very cool..!
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/unbelievable-leopard-seal-encounter-video/
(another ‘aspirational-one’ for clintoiid..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
You know, if computer modelling was any fucking good, stock market chartists would have used it years ago to make fortunes.
It isn’t any bloody good so they all went broke and became climate scientists. The pricks now have made fortunes.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Is this blog a troll farm for pc lefty liberal geeks? I mean to say mal, lunk and petey, georgie girl and the drug addict phool linking whoring like a caged rat on acid.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Because the scientists weren’t around to observe the last interglacial period. They have no idea what is consistent because this is the first time they have observed it.
Models, models, models, anything about measurable data?
How come the conclusions were formed and predictions made well before these models were ‘improved’ if they are so important to the understanding of climate.
And it’s a hell of a lot simpler than modeling the climate, and they were able to correct things as they went.
Computer models for car impact tests are also very good now, only because they were able to do real life tests against the models and improve them, the one thing laking from climate models.
How many computer programs (which these models are) run perfectly before live tests? Can windows who spend billions and billions and have the best people have a piece of code run perfectly the first time? After all running a logical computer operating system is a hell of lot easier than modelling life on earth.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Repton,
How about quantifying this statement:
What is the temperature variation over the last 50 years or so and what is the margin of error in the predictions?
November 17th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Sonny, the lefty hip hop climate change freaks will argue that windows and google can change the weather. Keyboard cowboys on bullshit acid. Have a raw steak phool you vege twit. Must go the computer needs a good water. Fuck off with the bullshit gals and liberal wimps.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
stephen @ 2.55
“Anyone else a little bewildered by that ‘Spud’ character at Red Alert?”
Spud is a reincarnated ‘Max Headroom”
Max never grew up either
November 17th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Models are the product of processes (various theoretical) and data (various source types [terrestrial, ocean, and satellite], each with varying data quality controls).
The result is a matrix of permutations which means, once again, someone can run enough data through enough varied processes until they get the ‘evidence’ to support their hunch.
If you’re interested in the quality of terrestrial temperature data, check out this paper: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?.
pp16 shows that only 11% of monitoring stations are classified as reliable. pp18-29 shows photographs of why this reliability is so low.
The great prophet Algore (All credits be to him)™ launched his dream of carbon credit wealth off the back of this kind of junk science.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
“..Have a raw steak phool you vege twit..”
dad..i have seen vid of you..
do you consider yourself an advertisment for the carnivorous lifestyle..?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
phool that murder business was heavy crap and 60 minutes want to talk. I enjoy meat and at least I do more than some deranged drug addict siiting all day on a stupid fucking computer wanking dribble rhetoric everywhere!! Get in the ring you jerk. No doubt the police have a vid of you when you robbed the chemist shop. Remember deranged addict?
November 17th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Luc Hansen 4:36 pm,
So, Luc, it’s “anthropomorphic climate change” now, is it?
Not ‘anthropomorphic global warming’?
So I guess that means man is responsible for both global warming and global cooling?
So does that mean the last 10 years of global cooling are ALSO a result of man’s activities?
Kind of like having your cake and eating it too, eh Luc?
November 17th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Phool says:
D4J responds:
And with that it’s game, set and match to D4J. Damn – the boxing match didn’t even last a round!
November 17th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
The second part of your sentence gives an incorrect impression. With stochastic modelling the free inputs are randomly generated according to their estimated distributions, and the model is run many, many times. This gives you a distribution of outcomes for whatever you’re interested in. It’s not a case of running the simulation until you get a single outcome which matches what you want. And because you have a distribution of outcomes, you get results that look like this “there’s a 90% chance that X will exceed Y”. And which is why you’ll never get a black and white answer; only a range with associated probabilities.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
getstaffed 6:06 pm If you’re interested in the quality of terrestrial temperature data, check out this paper:
Another from the Heartlands list.
The NOAA response: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
November 17th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
RightNow, sorry, forgot to reply.
I’m not a fan of privatising global warming, which is what ETS does, essentially. I’m concerned about the potential for rorts and the prospect of paying some countries for smarter forgery than genuine reductions in emissions. While I have some sympathy for a carbon tax with individual tradeable rebates, the same basic objections apply. However, we must start somewhere and thanks to the naysayers here, I have done enough research now to be changed from a reluctant advocate for action to fully supporting effective or even semi-effective schemes.
I have posted this link before http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com which supports technological innovation rather than cap and trade schemes. But what if the innovation doesn’t occur?
New Zealand is in a unique position, as far as I know, in that 40% of emissions derive from our livestock, so why we aren’t pouring millions into a drive for discovery of some method of reducing our methane emissions is a source of wonderment to me. We could even contract out to high achieving scientific communities such as that in Israel. It’s that important.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
‘vids’ weren’t invented then..it was so long ago..
you didn’t answer the question..
do you think you are an advertisment for the carnivorous lifestyle..?
i mean..you are about sixty..?..aren’t you..?
(but you do look older..eh..?..)
y’know..you spend your whole like eating dead meat/fat/blood..
and you end up looking like a piece of dead meat yrslf..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Malcolm,
I responded to your comment/invitation over on ‘Belle de Jour revealed’.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/11/belle_de_jour_revealed.html#comment-632456
November 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Kris, yes, that is exactly the case. Some emissions actually cause cooling before they cause warming. Think of nature’s clouds. They have a localised warming effect, yet overall act to cool the planet. On the other hand, the human induced ozone hole, which is particularly large at the moment, is responsible for a temporary localised cooling effect over Antarctica
see http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/03/us/ozone-hole-is-now-seen-as-a-cause-for-antarctic-cooling.html
Anyway, doesn’t your Bible solve it all?
November 17th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
which goes to show how brain dead you are.
Don’t North American livestock emit more GHGs than ours? There are a great deal more fucking cows in North America than here ! And in India. And in Europe. And in Africa. So why are ours worse for the planet?
So Einstein why are we being penalized for our cows and sheep?
Fuck we are living in a country filled with morons.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Pete, 89% of NOAA’s Surface Stations fail to meet their own specification for placement.
But if you feel the need to cite NOAA’s own defensive spin in claiming that a temperature sensors on asphalt and close to heating ventilation unit have no impact then go right ahead.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
… that reminds me.
Dinner:
Crumbed schnitzel, baked potatoes, steamed broccoli, with a nice cheese and mustard sauce.
Yum, can’t wait.
Thanks Phool.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Thanks Kris, I’m pondering my reply and will write it after dinner for you. It is making me think. Cheers.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Luc Hansen 6:38 pm,
That must be one big ‘cloud’ to have resulted in 10 years of cooling, Luc.
So when exactly is this ‘cooling trend’ going to stop, Luc?
Do you or you experts have any idea, or will we only know once we arrive?
And which of the IPCC computer models predicted the last ten years of cooling?
And I mean ahead of time, not retrospectively.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Andrei, I don’t know the US’s livestock emissions, but what I do know is that as a country we have the highest percentage of emissions from livestock. I checked over what I wrote above and I can’t see how to express it more clearly. Perhaps you would like to read it again and let me know if it is still not clear.
You can find more information here: http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/climate/greenhouse-gas-policies/greengas-14.htm
November 17th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Kris, who said anything about clouds causing the current cooling trend. Why don’t you take the time and go through the IPCC reports yourself. After all, you seem to know the Bible back to front so a piddly 400-odd page report shouldn’t be beyond you.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
You fucking moron the reason why we “as a country we have the highest percentage of emissions from livestock” is because we don’t’ have much heavy industry and we don’t generate much of our power with fossil fuels.
Our emissions are diddly and diddly per capita as well.
Never the less we will send money to countries with much higher per capita emissions, such as China under this fuck witted scheme.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
For those who don’t blindly believe the NOAA is part of some faceless conspiracy theory and are concerned about reports of risinf ocean temperatures (which has an effect on sea levels through thermal expansion) might like to look at this graph:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
November 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Did you read the NOAA link getstaffed?
Scientists. Peer reviewed. Supported by observations.
Anthony Watts. Studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology. It is unclear whether he graduated.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I love that Delirium drags out the WaPo, despite the fact it’s been shown to be a piece of shit multiple times.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Hurf, all media can be suspect, that’s why it’s worth cross checking with multiple sources. Would you rather I linked to an ABC poll which says the same thing?
What about this one, similar result: Fox News poll
More Americans have a negative view of Palin than have a positive one. While 38 percent say they have a favorable opinion of her, 51 percent have an unfavorable view.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/27/fox-news-poll-percent-disapprove-congress/
November 17th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
It’s not anthropomorphic anything. It’s anthropogenic. If it was anthropomorphic, we’d be talking about how much climate change hates Twilight novels.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Kris, the last ten years cooling has been debunked.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling
“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/27/mary-matalin/matalin-claims-earth-cooling/
etc etc
November 17th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Don’t worry, Peteypoos, I’m sure you can pull out some SOURCECHECK DO-DO-DO about how Dr Nicholas Von Bleurgh is being paid off by EVIL BIG OIL and that they only way we can save ourselves is by submitting ourselves to Mother Gaia and instituting car-free days.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Andrei, you have anger management as well as comprehension problems. You should get treatment.
Just as an aside, the point is not our total emissions as a percentage of global emissions (tiny) but to be seen to be doing our bit and not freeloading.
And I share your reservations about the current schemes but you need to come up with something other than mere ranting.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Luc Hansen,
You have been treated huh? Any left over drugs?
Pass them on to Phool, no questions asked
November 17th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Gar! Garrrrrrrgh! Internet arguments make Krong ANGRYYYYY! GAAARRRRRRR!
November 17th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Hey, Ry, weren’t you an editor of Crappum? Says it all, really.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
This lot of fuckwits have more tangents than Brian. Was that his mother’s fault?
Fuck off, but how shall we fuck off?
Brian just wanted the cheesemakers to have rights
November 17th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
KRONG NO LIKE HURF DURF! KRONG SMASH!
November 17th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Thanks Ryan.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
KRONG KNOW NO THANKS. KRONG SMASH THANKS.
INTERNET ARGUMENT VERY IMPORTANT!
KRONG MAKE SACRIFICE, PLEASE INTERNET ARGUMENT.
KRONG NO BELIEVE DPF HAVE NO FILTER OF ALL-CAPS COMMENTS!
November 17th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
KRONG GO NOW. KRONG WORK DONE. ALL GET ANGRY ABOUT INTERNET ARGUMENT AND TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY OR KRONG COME BACK ANGRY!
November 17th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Hi, guys! It’s me, your pal Ryan! What did I miss?
November 17th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“I love that Delirium drags out the WaPo, despite the fact it’s been shown to be a piece of shit multiple times.”
Its just one more example of the kind of ignorance that underpins Progressive ideas. They’re so stupid and unknowing they actually do think that we will be impressed by shit written in the Washington Post. They know nothing of the scorn that publication attracts outside the ever decreasing circle of progressivism. Its the same dated ignorance that underpins all their beliefs.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Making progress on getstaffed’s list:
1. Why is the atmosphere cooling when carbon emissions are increasing?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/27/mary-matalin/matalin-claims-earth-cooling/
Thanks Pete
November 17th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Ryan, you just totally missed Krong. Oh my God.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/naturalscience/index.html
CLIMATE CHANGE, GLOBAL WARMING & METEOROLOGY
* Scientist: Arctic Ocean to Be Ice-Free in Summer
* Texas Scorched by Worst Drought in 50 Years
* Huge Dust Cloud Circled World in 13 Days
* Bill Gates Joins Project to Tame Hurricanes
* Scientists: Rich Should Pay More for Global Warming
* Global Recession Cuts Down on Global Warming
* Global Warming May Be Slowing America’s Winds
* U.N.: Nature Best at Handling Climate Change
November 17th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Who made you the spokesperson for everyone else Red?
Narcissists Anonymous?
November 17th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Spud is a reincarnated ‘Max Headroom”
Max never grew up either
After doing some research – ‘heh’.I was thinking something along the lines of something a Labour staffer programmed to automatically generate approval for a post, but he talks back…
November 17th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
More progress for getstaffed:
5. Are polar bear populations increasing, or are they dying out? The short answer is: no and not yet.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2161
an extract: Over the past two decades, studies in western and southern Hudson Bay show that polar bears are growing thinner, that undernourished females are having smaller litters, and that females are giving birth to lighter cubs that do not survive as well.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Making progress on getstaffed’s list:
A site that has a good Q&A sort of ‘index’ for this stuff is http://www.skepticalscience.com, is pretty well done, lots of links to papers/official sources and all that jazz.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Then there is this for getstaffed:
7. Is the arctic ice cap expanding or contracting. Will NASA images help us there?
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/polarregions.html
November 17th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
stephen
those bastards are just donkey deep in the AGW trough, obviously!!
apologies for the mixed metaphor
I just still haven’t worked out who is chucking the pig food into the trough and why. Maybe I should check out Kris K’s Bible
November 17th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
@Sonny:
Unfortunately, I don’t have any nicely potted statistics to give you. The book I’ve got shows a picture from the IPCC showing that models that include anthropogenic forcings match observations much better than models that do not — but the reference for the picture is a dead link. You could try poking through here, though: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf
Of course, there are a number of different models and the IPCC tries to combine the results, which does not necessarily work. If you really want to know, you’ll have to dig through the references in the above chapter, to see what the people who made the models have published.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Luc, are you willing or able to spell out to us in $ terms and in human terms, the implications of your position? e.g.
What targets do you suggest NZ adopt?
How much in $ will it cost NZ to adopt such?
Who will receive those $?
How many employers will be consequently affected, broken down by industry?
To what extent – e.g. which will go completely broke, which will be unable to employ a single person for x years, which will be able to carry on as usual?
Don’t worry if you’re unable to be completely accurate, as I know this is impossible. However, as you’ve clearly given this dilemma plenty of thought with respect to whether it actually exists, I’m expecting you’ll have given equal thought time to the practical implications of implementing the plan you’re advocating, so looking forward to your facts and figures here, in considerable detail.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
reid, cheers mate. Why have the UN and individual government’s well paid bureaucracy when good ol’ Luc can just whistle up the solution
I fear that we will be forced to adapt locally because of inaction at government level. As with all change, there will be winners and losers.
To hear from someone much more learned than me on what the future will bring, go here
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday An interview with Dmitry Orlov
and visit his website http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/
November 17th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Er Luc, the topic is: what are the implications of what you’re advocating.
You either don’t know, or you refuse to tell us because they’re grossly unpalatable.
There doesn’t seem to be a third alternative.
Unless I’m wrong, why not just STFU until you do know, because that knowledge in specific and clear detail is really the pre-requisite to any particular course of action we adopt, isn’t it.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
reid, I have addressed your question above and in earlier posts. What I have been doing here is combating the deniers. If you recognise that there is a AGW problem, that’s good and I would like to hear what you have to say regarding the solutions.
But my general feeling is it will all be too little and too late to avoid major, and for some catastrophic, change. As far as predictions go, it’s a bit like the eternal war dictum: the battle plan is the first casualty of war.
And the second casualty is so often encapsulated by the dictum: STFU.
I would say same to you but I am much too courteous for that – besides, I’ve already used it on Hurfy
November 17th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
The graph on page 600 looks by eye to have errors of 0.6 deg C for a rise of 0.7 deg C over 100 years. Awesome, nice to see those models ‘improving’.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Awesome Luc, you’ve convinced me, where do I sign up?
November 17th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
That was the stupidest pile of turd I have heard in a long time. Sell National Radio immediately.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Ever heard of the Club of Rome?
The great prophet Algore (All credits be to him)™ is a member, along with 99 other notables including Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Mikhail Gorbachevm, Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist, Sir Crispin Tickell – Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, The Dalai Lama, Stephen Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports, Bill Gate, Bill Clinton and others.
Look at this from their 1972 book entitled Limits to Growth:
So the Club Of Rome folks are not flakes. They are heavy hitters, and way back in 1972 they were openly promoting the idea that conjuring up threats and fears would help them bring about change to our global governance.
Concerned? Yes, I think we should be.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
At least the US can’t declare war on climate change…
can they?
November 17th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
If that were an answer to the question of are polar bear populations decreasing? It would not be a good one for global warming.
Polar Bear populations should increase with global warming as their food sources flourish. It’s actually a pain in the ass for animal life when it is freezing cold
And in fact this interpreation matches the temperature record, Polar Bear population in the 70’s ~5,000, today ~25,000. Global temperature has risen 0.6 deg C over this time.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
It’s a real shame that we are lucky enough to live in what will be the warmest climate of man’s recorded history and have people spoiling it for everyone running around yelling ‘the sky is falling’ as the crops grow better than ever before and as sickness and death from cold reaches new lows.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Another thing about Polar bears,
They are a very, very young species and as such, unproven by nature. I don’t think they have even been around through a complete ice age/interglacial cycle. There is every chance that they might not make it even if man did not exist. They actually evolved in Europe, not the arctic, and have retreated there with the ice.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:07 am
And another thing abour polar bears: did you know that they like to attack people while they take a shit? If I did the same thing, I would expect to be killed. The bears have it coming. Bastards.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:26 am
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
November 18th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Sonny
read fully the link I posted above.
But what’s your angle with this? Don’t want to change…pay…don’t care about the future generations…
November 18th, 2009 at 12:46 am
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
November 18th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.
- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
November 18th, 2009 at 12:49 am
“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
- Dr Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General
November 18th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Reading up on Maurice Strong thanks to your heads up, getstaffed. Many connections to Western Maoists living in China. Unnerving stuff. When you go deeply into the connections and the history, you can see environmentalism and socialism skipping merrily along hand in hand.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Ooo, here’s a good one …
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
November 18th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Under-the-radar review of MPs’ perks
By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post
Last updated 05:00 18/11/2009
MPs’ perks are about to come under fresh scrutiny as a high-powered review quietly gets under way.
The review is taking place as MPs are embroiled in controversy over the use of taxpayer money for perks, including travel by themselves and their spouses. It is required by law after every election, meaning MPs had no control over its timing.
But it was officially confirmed in a statement by Speaker Lockwood Smith only yesterday, after the review committee had already met for the first time and despite it being widely known that former speaker Sir Doug Kidd had been appointed to lead it.
The appointment of Sir Doug, an MP of 24 years standing, is controversial – the last review was headed by an outsider, businessman John Goulter.
Mr Goulter’s 2007 report angered MPs when it recommended an overhaul of the perks system and questioned spouses getting free travel on the taxpayer. Many of his recommendations were ignored.
Sir Doug said yesterday he was not going to discuss the review and one of the first decisions the committee had made was not to talk to the media.
He also declined to comment on whether it was appropriate for a former MP to head the review. “I’m not going to enter into discussion on that … You will have to judge things by the result.” He is being assisted by economist Philip Barry.
The review comes as MPs are under more scrutiny than ever before since a series of scandals over perks, including their accommodation allowances and travel subsidies for overseas trips.
ACT leader and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide has paid back more than $20,000 used when he took his girlfriend, Louise Crome, on trips to Hawaii and Europe.
Finance Minister Bill English has also repaid money claimed in ministerial accommodation allowances on his family home.
At the weekend, Prime Minister John Key did not rule out asking Dr Smith to look at revamping MPs’ perks, saying there was “merit” in the idea. But a spokesman for Mr Key said yesterday that it was not the prime minster’s intention to do so at the moment.
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei, who has called for an independent review of MPs’ allowances and perks, said she was comfortable with a former Speaker and MP heading the review.
It was useful to have someone in charge who understood the system and how Parliamentary Service operated.
It had been seven years since Sir Doug had been in Parliament so she did not believe he would be too close to the process.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Getstaffed, You’re onto it.
It’s a pity the sheeple aren’t.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:07 am
those bastards are just donkey deep in the AGW trough, obviously!!
It’s really just one retired physicist, but i bet he’s a lesbian-marxist.