This entry was posted
on Monday, November 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 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.
“the European Union is drawing up plans for aircraft-style black-box recorders to be fitted to all cars to help the police identify who is responsible for crashes. The boxes will record 20 types of data, including speed, the car’s most recent movements and whether the driver braked or indicated.”
“Um, yeah, maybe, but if we run out of sufficient resources here, oil for example, it’s not going to help if there is abundant oil somewhere on the other side of the universe.”
We already commercially produce syntheized oil Pete.
We have adapted through every change of the last million years, we have survived ice ages and technological shifts that our recent forebears did not have the capacity to conceive.
With the increasingly sophisticated computors in modern cars that potential is probably available now or very close. My lovers car although not new, processes a lot of data before startup so it would be interesting to hear from one who has an understanding of what is possible here.
5 previous convictions for sex related crimes against children and number 6 gets him 5 1/2 years, eligible for parole after 3 1/2.
The Judge says he considerd preventative detention? that is a huge discount from the Judge, who says he believes the guy will offend again !!
Hello, Judge, what if the next victim that you believe is out there, happens to be someone you love? How do you sleep at night?
And WTF is a 5 time convicted child sex offender doing out of prison anyway? 5 convictions! For sex crimes against kids. Walking free to commit crime number 6.
We can’t protect our children from assault, killers or sex offenders. Pathetic.Sad. Scary.
“..Climate change emissions from meat production are far higher than estimated ..
.. according to a controversial new study that will fuel the debate on whether people should eat fewer animal products to help the environment.
In a paper published by a respected United States think tank, the Worldwatch Institute ..
.. two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent.
They claim United Nations figures have severely underestimated the greenhouse gases caused by tens of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other animals in three main areas: ..
.. methane, land use and respiration.
Their findings – which are likely to prompt fierce debate among academics -
- come amid increasing calls from climate change experts for people to eat less meat.
In the 19-page report, Robert Goodland, a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, a current adviser, suggest domesticated animals cause 32 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2) ..
.. more than the combined impact of industry and energy.
The accepted figure is 18 per cent, taken from a landmark UN report in 2006, Livestock’s Long Shadow.
“If this argument is right,” write Goodland and Anhang ..
.. “it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives .. would be the best strategy for reversing climate change.
“In fact, this approach would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations ..
.. than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.”
Their call to move to meat substitutes accords with the views of the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri ..
.. who has described eating less meat as “the most attractive opportunity” for making immediate changes to climate change..”
Sonny said We have adapted through every change of the last million years, we have survived ice ages and technological shifts that our recent forebears did not have the capacity to conceive.
But Sonny, we are not amoeba floating in a primeval soup any more. How old is the modern human species, 100,000 years or so? And all those changes occurred during the development of the planet to it’s present state. This is the first actually caused or significantly to by humans.
But, hey, if enough want to return to the soup…well, be careful what you wish for!
With the technology to harness this energy we are able to purify and distribute water (which covers 71% of the earth surface and 97% of the volume of living space, effectively infinite for human terms)
And access the 510,072,000 km² of minerals in the Earths 6-50km thick crust (currently 5% of land is developed by humans- which will decline in population as wealth increases in the future)
I don’t recall saying that I predict Humanity will become immortal.
But I’d say something similar to those who have increased their chance of death by taking vitamin supplements, due to the rapid advancement of knowledge and research, now we know better.
There seem to be a lot of fans of the use up, mess up and rely on someone else to keep coming up with solutions club (sounds similar to the perpetual beneficiaries club). It is inevitable that some time the shit will hit the fans.
I didn’t say you predicted humanity would become immortal.
It’s just that your attitude seems to be along the lines of, “We’ve dealt with every problem in the past, so there’s no point in anticipating problems in the future.”
But Sonny, we are not amoeba floating in a primeval soup any more. How old is the modern human species, 100,000 years or so? And all those changes occurred during the development of the planet to it’s present state. This is the first actually caused or significantly to by humans.
Well ask the Neanderthal, Dodo, Mammoth, Moa, Easter Islanders, etc etc if the current issues are the first caused significantly by humans. Here and now is a very small frame of referance.
We had problems in the past, and many of them have been dealt with (penicillin, x-rays, polio vaccine anti-biotics, calculators etc etc)
Anticipating and solving problems is something we have tens of thousands of scientists and entrepeneurs working on every day. Some of them are even pretty good at what they do.
I just saw a few people on the Sustainability thread on Sat say that we are going to run out of resources, as has been claimed for the last few thousand years.
Never in the last few thousand years (actually never) has the human population been 6.794 billion. In 1959 it was 3 billion. Forecast 9 billion by 2040.
That means humans don’t just have to try and sustain current levels of resources, they need to find a heap more or find alternatives. In thirty years we will need a third more (at the current standard of living).
1. A comprehensive survey of US hospital records show that uninsured children are 60% more likely to die in hospital that insured children. The survey did not consider deaths of children not admitted to hospital. When this is combined with the recent Harvard study estimating 45,000 deaths per year as a direct consequence of lack of insurance, it all adds up to pretty horrifying picture.
And it appears the Obama administration has cut a deal with the health insurance industry over a Public Option: guess which party is getting the lion’s share of health industry lobbying money.
2. Corruption 1: two Judges caught accepting millions of dollars in bribes to send juvenile offenders to privately run prisons.
Corruption 2: Fully 50% of the members of a house committee responsible for military spending are under investigation (secret, but it got leaked) for ethics breaches.
Maybe item 1 should have filed under corruption as well.
This would be slightly OT on the superannuation thread, but DPF outlines a bunch of issues that could be debated which made me think that Don Brash when Nat party leader once put this one forward: the longer you delayed taking super after reaching the age of eligibility, the higher your payments would be once you did take it. Was it him?! Good idea/bad idea?
“..A good friend of mine, an almost lifelong heroin user who, more recently, has diversified into crack cocaine ..
.. and therefore requires a quick blast from an oxygen cylinder before going for a walk ..
.. rang me not so long ago with a warning: “Rod, I’m worried about your drinking,” he said. “You’ve really got to look after yourself.”
I couldn’t speak for a few moments, out of incredulity and indignation;..
.. I consume on average half a bottle of wine per day, which is too much, sure —
– but to be lectured by a crack-addled skaghead with half a lung .. and the facial complexion of that character in Munch’s The Scream ..
.. seemed, to me, pushing it.
He explained further: ..
..“In my profession [he’s a rock singer], the drunks check out in their forties and fifties.
We smackheads usually hold things together for another 20 years more.”
Colloquially — and with a few famous exceptions — he was right.
I was reminded of this when reading about the fate of the unfortunately named Professor Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ..
.. who has just been sacked by the government .. for similarly telling the truth.
Alan Johnson and the prime minister do not wish to have an advisory council which actually advises ..
.. which provides objective information that may run counter to what they believe they can get away with politically.
In the drugs debate, the truth should not be allowed to intervene too often; ..
..the truth is required to mind its Ps and Qs, keep quiet and wait in the hallway .. while policy is being decided.
David Nutt had made a few headline-grabbing quotes in an attempt to re-educate the public and the government about the comparative dangers of drugs.
The first was that ecstasy is less dangerous than horse-riding .. and no more addictive.
Regarding the word “addiction” in its strictly clinical context he is, of course, correct —
– although “dependency” is a different issue.
But he is also right — so far as I can work out — on the statistics.
On average 40 people die as a consequence of ecstasy every year;..
.. a low estimate would suggest that 1m tablets are consumed every week.
An estimated 100 people die as a consequence of horse-riding every year; ..
.. a very high estimate, based on government figures, suggests that there are about 600,000 horse rides every week.
So horse-riding is easily the more dangerous leisure option.
But, of course, this comparison produced apoplexy in the right-wing press.
One particularly idiotic columnist in the Daily Mail, dismissing the statistics with an airy wave of the hand ..
.. remarked that nonetheless horse-riding was not “inherently” dangerous.
I think she meant that people who ride horses tend to speak nicely and have labradors.
I can’t think what else she meant by “inherently”.
Incidentally, taking ecstasy while riding a horse is exponentially more dangerous ..
.. not least for the horse.
Nutt also pointed out the simple fact that cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol ..
.. pretty much regardless of the strength of the dope;..
.. nobody disputes this ..
.. and nobody disputed it three years ago when Nutt first made the comparison.
But at that point the government was busy trying to push through its bill to ban the smoking of tobacco in public places ..
.. and what is now an unfortunate truth .. was then a useful propaganda tool.
I have my own prejudices: ..
..I don’t like illegal drugs and, except for my friend mentioned above, I don’t like druggies.
I have a particular dislike for the drug of my own milieu, cocaine.
I often wonder to what extent the jabbering, self-obsessed, narcissistic bilge you read in your daily newspapers ..
.. is a consequence of several grams of Bolivian marching powder rammed up the left nostril ..
.. and how much because the writers are simply chemically unenhanced jabbering, self-obsessed narcissists:..
.. a bit of both, I would guess.
But advisers should advise, surely ..
.. and be especially commended for doing so when their advice runs counter to public opinion ..
and gets up the nose .. to use an inapt metaphor .. of critics..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
whoar:..’celebrating the good writing of others..since 2005′..
I have just heard that it is;
(a) legal to masturbate while driving a car.
(b) Illegal to talk on a mobile phone while driving a car.
Which wanker came up with that law?
Where’s Sonny? I’ve been busy with baby who badly needed to sleep but steadfastly refused to go there until I played her the long version of Hallelujah. I’ve been trying to wean her off her love affair with Lenny but it seems a lost cause.
Anyway, back to Sonny. What’s his stance? It seems to be that we managed to evolve through all sorts of trials and tribulations therefore we will always survive. Is that it?
Dinosaurs roamed the earth for a couple of hundred million years and they got zapped. Something like 90% or more of the species earth has given rise to have died off. What makes him think we will be so special?
The human species will become extinct one day, at least on this planet. We will become barbequed by the sun, in a few million years, in the unlikely event that we even survive that long. To make the most of our time here, we need to face up to any threats to our wellbeing and ACT (and I’m not talking about Rodney) where we can.
It appears we can at least reduce the impact of global warming by changing our behaviour. Isn’t it all a bit silly to fight against an entirely reasonable and self-interested action plan?
When hurf durf is seen, it is understood that whatever has been quoted and labeled as hurf durf is completely and utterly unreasonable and impossible of being taken seriously.
Congratulations, Puke, you’ve finally grasped it. If you would to know what my unique blend of rage and hilarity in verb form is, it is “to Hansen,” e.g. “I’ve just Hansened on General Debate and now Puke is sobbing into his kaffiyeh.”
I would suggest 99% of species are becoming extinct Luc.
We have to come to terms with the fact the we have an irreversible effect on the rest of the planet and are going to have to decide which species to let go extinct.
My point is it is human (and animal) nature to be fearful and paranoid. I believe overcoming our base fears is an impotant part of furthering our society. Our entire society is a result of overcoming our fears and pooling our resources, the people that are to fearful of this become isolationists and suffer as a result.
Every day there is reason to expect impending doom, and throughout history, people have always thought that disaster was imminent. Here are the titles of some modern movies:
Armageddon (1998) Deep Impact (1998) Dante’s Peak (1997) The Day After Tomorrow (2004) The Perfect Storm (2000) Waterworld (1995) Twister (1996) Backdraft (1991) Volcano (1997) 28 Days Later (2002) Signs (2002) Cabin Fever (2003) Children of Men (2006) The Happening (2008) I Am Legend (2007) The Invasion (2007) Outbreak (1995) Quarantine (2008) Wall-e (2008) Chain Reaction (1996) Eagle Eye (2008) Live Free or Die Hard (Die Hard 4.0) (2007) I, Robot (2004) The Peacemaker (1997) The Sum of All Fears (2002) Watchmen (2009) Final Destination (2000) Passenger 57 (1992) Snakes on a Plane (2006) Turbulence (1997) Air Force One (1997) Speed (1994) Crimson Tide (1995) K-19: The Widowmaker (2002) Poseidon (2006) The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) Jurassic Park (1993) King Kong (2005) Cloverfield (2008)
We like disasters, we like crises. We are programmed to worry about what might harm or kill us, as our intelligence increases, we have become more and more imaginative about what might go wrong. We need to grow up from being like little kids afraid of the dark. The difficulty we have is that each generation forgets that we have been wrong each and every time previously we have thought that the end is nigh. The problem with climate change is that by the time it is clear that we will be ok, we are going to move onto the next scare and people like Luc will scream ‘but you can’t prove I’m wrong, a meteor could hit your house tomorrow’ because it is in the nature of those of us who cannot overcome our base fears.
Yes, every thing previously has become extinct for whatever reason and so will we eventually, but overall evolution has progressed from soup to amoeba in invertebrates to vetebrates to us. We have crossed several thresholds of evolution and our minds have become one of the key factors in future evolution. We are natures latest solution to deciding the shape of what comes after us, we are not some cancer to be expurged.
Just a thought, if technological advances continue at the same rate as the last 100 years what will 100 years from now be like? Not that any of us will still be alive to see it……or will we?
No surprise in seeing drug and alcohol policy is more and more controlled by uneducated unscientific knee jerk reaction, both here and the UK (and the US).
Palin (and other Republicans) praise Scozzafava for acting “selflessly” by pulling out.
Scozzafava (the original republican selected candidate) has now endorsed Democrat Bill Owens.
The result will largely be determined by who actually votes, special elections typically have very low turnouts (this favours the conservative vote usually).
A bit of conventional wisdom has developed that Democrats should be rooting for Hoffman because it will embolden conservatives to nominate more conservative, but less electable Republican candidates in other races.
I would suggest 99% of species are becoming extinct Luc.
We have to come to terms with the fact the we have an irreversible effect on the rest of the planet and are going to have to decide which species to let go extinct.
We really aren’t, you know.
It’s not a case of “It’s us or the haddock.” We’re not going to improve our chances of survival because we have a panda holocaust. It’s more likely to be the other way around – the more animals we kill, the more we upset the millions of years old ecosystem and the more likely we are to cash our chips in.
But if you insist. I’m just going outside to do my bit for humanity by stomping some cats to death.
My point Chris, is that with or without humans, some or all of Kakapos, Pandas, Takahe, Tigers, Rhinos, etc etc will go extinct. And species becoming extinct because of human effects are inevitable and perfectly natural also. The advanced evolution of our intellects leads us to try to protect these species (we have a symbiotic relationship with many different animals for very diverse reasons). But we cannot keep this up for all species indefinitely as inevitably the cost will become excessive and the idea of freezing an animal at a certain stage of its evolution will become less important. Eventually we will have to decide to turn the life support off for some species. It is going to be a difficult decision, but I see that we are going to have to face up to doing it eventually.
By the way, its not really a millions of years old ecosystem, it is constantly changing and evolving. The ecosystem is considerably different than it was a million years ago, off the top of my head there are no more Mammoth, Sabre Tooths, Woolly Rhinos, Neanderthals, Dodo, Moa, Aurochs, etc etc.
I am reminded of a description I heard from a scientist somewhere ‘The Earth is as tough as old boots’.
I would suggest your closing sentence is the ultimate in the human hubris that could see us extinct sooner rather later
This seems to be a common head in the sand lefty response. We have an unremovable impact on almost all life over the whole Earth, it is pointless to pretend otherwise.
The truth is not arrogant and is not reason to detest ourselves. There is no ‘Mother Nature’ or whatever that we are in opposition with.
We’re very powerful, and bring rapid and destructive change to eco-systems large and small.
Just like Elephants, Locusts, Mice and many other animals can be.
We are also capable of very rapid recovery of ecosystems as shown by marine and bush sanctuaries such as Goat Island and Karori, where we are able to protect animals from even the predators that they would be facing naturally.
Are we supposed to be using our powers to do something and create sanctuaries, or not doing anything because they’re going to die anyway – as long as we don’t kill them – or actively killing them because they’re going to die anyway and we should be looking after ourselves?
Both at the same time Chris, its not that hard to fathom even if lefties prefer a black and white picture.
We are going to have to get over the idea of a species becoming extinct, we can’t expect a process that as always occurred to disappear with our appearance. Not that I don’t think we should try hard to save as many as possible, but the cause of some of these extinctions is going to be in our hands.
And more well planned sancturies and such will have a positive effect on wildlife. Most ecosystems are remarkably recoverable and it is well within our capabilities to do so.
According to Sonny, 97% of the world’s climate scientists are “lefty” because they agree that the planet is warming. And 80% of the same scientists attribute this warming at least partially to human activity. That’s a lot of leftists in the one profession.
And Gareth Morgan. a high priest of laissez faire economics (no disrespect intended, just by way of explanation) who’s book Poles Apart dissects the science and polemics to come down squarely on the side of those climate scientists.
So let’s just forget the ideological divide and focus on the facts. This is not of the left or the right. Just have a look at all the right wing leaders who also side with the scientists.
Sonny may wish to leave our survival to the throw of the dice (and remember, Einstein said God doesn’t play dice) but I don’t.
Some of them were due to climate change actually, real climate change from 5 to 14 deg rather than make than the 0.6 deg that has the idiots all worked up.
Just tell me this, please: what’s your problem with accepting the consensus view of the vast majority of trained, qualified scientists that climate change is occurring and it is at least in part due to human activity.
Are you a trained climate scientist? Like many people, you have probably read lots in support of your view, but have you read the other side, like Poles Apart?
Me, I’m not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. i go with the overwhelming consensus. Mind you, I am a sceptic on ETS and carbon taxes, but that’s another topic.
It’s you Phool isn’t it. You gave the cattle freedom, drove them up the hill from Long Bay and parked them on Council Land.
Now the Council is investigating. First, how many are cows and how many are steers? Will we ever know, we are talking townies here, they don’t know the difference between cows, steers or queers.
Sideshowbob, the North Shore Shitty Council needs you.
what’s your problem with accepting the consensus view of the vast majority of trained, qualified scientists that climate change is occurring and it is at least in part due to human activity.
Ooooo, I’ll answer that. The problems I have with this are that :-
(a) The scientists are fed non-peer reviewed data, which in many cases has been shown to be scientifically fraudulent and, further, that they’re not given access to the source information
(b) Their research is predicated on finding proof of something that has been pre-determined (Global warming)
(c) Their research funding would be cut off, and they would be subjected to ridicule (which they have supported and/or evidenced) if they were to produce findings that didn’t support result pre-determined as per (b)
(d) They are not the vast majority, simply the majority that are most substantially funded and have the ear of the global MSM – who profit from promoting alarmist/extremist stories.
(e) That none of Al Gore, Bono or Keisha Castle-Hughes are trained scientists, yet they receive 100x the MSM coverage of
trained scientists who dare to question the religion of climate change.
.. and bugger, I’ve run out of time to list the rest !!
Does anyone know anything about wind farms (for power generation) interfering with aviation radar? I don’t seem to recall reading it is a consideration in NZ, but it seems to be an issue overseas.
May I ask you this: do you think all out carbon emissions, including those from fossil fuels and intensive animal farming, do no harm to the environment?
Compare NZ’s weak, hands-off attitude to the soaring kiwi dollar with what some other countries are doing to try to dampen down their currencies:
Brazil has imposed a 2% tax on foreign-investment inflows. Canada says it may begin buying dollars for the first time in ten years, and the Bank of Japan may do the same.
South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Thailand are all intervening to dampen their currencies.
Meanwhile, the NZ position is by contrast apathetic, weak, and resigned to the will of speculators. We could at least be trying to keep a lid on the overpriced kiwi dollar.
US move allowing HIV tourists welcomed
The United States has lifted a ban on HIV-positive individuals entering the country, a move warmly welcomed by the New Zealand Aids Foundation.
Would the welcome mat be rolled out if I arrived at LAX and declared that I had swine flu?
Jack5 – if Kiwi’s (incl the govt) stopped spending beyond our means then we’d not need the same levels of foreign borrowings, and interest rates would fall.. and along with it the NZD. Just my theory.
Just tell me this, please: what’s your problem with accepting the consensus view of the vast majority of trained, qualified scientists that climate change is occurring and it is at least in part due to human activity.
Are you a trained climate scientist? Like many people, you have probably read lots in support of your view, but have you read the other side, like Poles Apart?
Me, I’m not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. i go with the overwhelming consensus. Mind you, I am a sceptic on ETS and carbon taxes, but that’s another topic.
The words of a true moron.
I am an intelligent person, I can understand science. I expect scientists to be able to clearly lay out their research for others to see. The problem with climate change is mainly to do with the conclusions made from the research, there is no research that unequivocally shows that climate change is going to be a problem. If there is, please explain it to me, I am intelligent enough not to be jump into line just because someone says that other people hold a particular point of view.
When I see clear data I will review my opinion. You have not produced any and I wouldn’t be suprised if you have formed your views without knowing what particular piece of scientific research has led you there. Please name the scientist and the data that provides the evidence you trumpet.
There is a clear difference between scientific research and the conclusions and conjectures people make out of it. Beyond being professional researchers, scientists are people like you and me, I know plenty of them and consider some of them to be great people, some of them are hopelessly clueless and think that Robbie Williams is the greatest musician alive. They all vote in elections and buy lotto tickets and drink in the weekends, I don’t hang on their every word. Sometimes they do very good research and form ridiculous opinions from it.
Almost nobody knows who the scientists in the ‘consensus’ are or how this consensus is established or challenged. It is an extremely unorthodox way to talk about science. The majority of scientists within this ‘consensus’ are undoubtably not experts on climate change, I would say the number who are is very close to 0. I suspect that the true opinions of the scientific community are close to equally divided at the moment.
Telling me 1000 idiots agree with each other is not a very convincing argument. I consider there to be a very high burden of proof before billions of dollars of peoples hard earned work is thrown at an idea, we are a long way from reaching the threshold of evidence required. All those people who think it will be too late to wait for proof are twice as thick as the rest.
Further to the above, I am not a magpie and I forget the details and don’t collect everything I read. But off the top of my head I can recall Chris Landsea as a scientist who has written for the IPCC and who has serious issues with they way they conduct themselves. You can google his resignation letter easily enough.
getstaffed, why don’t you tell us what you would cut in govt spending, how much by, and the projected social consequences? Be specific. And remember you need to rein in spending by a couple of hundred million per week.
May I ask you this: do you think all out carbon emissions, including those from fossil fuels and intensive animal farming, do no harm to the environment?
This is a completely different question to whether anthropogenic climate catastrophe will be a problem, either get to the point or display some understanding of the topic.
The precautionary principle alone should inform your views on this. But I still don’t get what your problem is with this topic.
What people fail to grasp is that combating global warming is a business opportunity much more than a cost. New technologies and industries will flower. And we will hopefully alleviate the worst effects, if those effects do come to pass. If they don’t, we are still better off because we have advanced our knowledge.
To me, it’s win win. The idea is not to panic. Our scientists are not lemmings diving off a cliff. All they can do is interpret the available data. As new data comes to light, their conclusions may change. Who knows?
By the way, there are about 10,000 recognised climate scientists in the worlds, and about 3500 replied to the survey. The rest are probably too busy researching to reply.
However, sigh, I patiently await the next ad hominem…
(b) Their research is predicated on finding proof of something that has been pre-determined (Global warming)
This is a particularly relevant point. A few months ago I read a study which showed that playing computer games is good for the eyes as the stimulation was good exercise, I have seen many studies that say screens are bad for your eyes.
I lived with a guy doing a PhD on coffee, he loved the stuff and managed to find plenty of data that it would turn you into superman. I’m sure we’ve all seen data about the negatives of coffee.
There was a study released showing beer was a preservative of heart muscle the same week as another showed it was a carcinogen.
There has been $30 billion dollars directed towards researching global warming, usually asking the wrong question. BP has spent $30 million. The flow of money does effect the science, this is why we know alot more about Coffee Beans than we do about Pistachio Nuts.
Some opinions from scientists:
“We simply cannot afford to gamble… by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climactic instability are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.”
1978 Lowell Ponte. The Cooling.
“the battle to feed all of humanity is over … In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
“India couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980,” or “be self-sufficient in food by 1971.”
Paul R Ehrlich. New Scientist and The Population Bomb 1968.
“Julian L. Simon and Paul Ehrlich entered in a famous wager in 1980, betting on a mutually agreed upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. Ehrlich ultimately lost the bet, and all five commodities that were selected as the basis for the wager have continued to trend downward until 2002″
The Simon-Ehrlich Wager. Wikipedia.
“Things are only going to get more confusing…The point of absolute certainty will never come…Nevertheless, I am assuming at least a twelve month disruption of basic goods and services, including periods of;
No electrical power
No clean water
No telecommunications
Shortages of food, gasoline, clothing, and all retail goods
Widespread bank failures and inaccessibility of funds
Stock market crash
Dramatic drop in real estate values
Economic depression
Widespread unemployment
Civil unrest, including protests, riots and general lawlessness”
Michael S Hyatt. The Y2K Personal Survival Guide 1999.
I think ANY climate catastrophe, whether anthropogenic or not, WILL be a problem.
And?
The Earth has regular climat changes from 5 to 15 degrees celcius and back again, most of the Earths species survive through the changes. The polar bears that used to live in the Meditaranean didn’t do so well though.
Luc Hansen attacked my recent statements (21.02.09), calling them ‘red herrings represented as cast-iron facts’, and ‘Israeli propaganda.’ He said he wants ‘independent verification.’ I’m happy to oblige.
In an earlier letter, David Zwartz provided verification for my statement that ‘historic Palestine… was divided… into Jordan, Israel and a Palestinian state’, so I will move on to Mr Hansen’s surprising denial that Arabs started the 1948 war — a fact that is almost universally accepted. E.g.,
‘As independence was declared, Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel.’ Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.
Ben-Gurion declared independence on 14 May… Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly-established state. — Wikipedia: 1948 Arab-Isareli War.
A more detailed picture of events was supplied by Amos Oz, an eye-witness. ‘A few hours later [after the UN voted to create the Jewish state ]… shots were fired at a Jewish ambulance… All over the country Arabs attacked Jewish buses on the highways, killed and wounded passengers, and fired with light arms and machine guns into outlying suburbs and isolated settlements.’, Amos Oz, Tales of Love and Darkness, p. 346.
‘At one minute past midnight [May 15], without war being declared, the infantry columns, artillery and armour of the regular Arab armies poured into the country, from Egypt to the south, Trans-Jordan and Iraq to the east and Lebanon and Syria to the north. On Saturday morning Tel Aviv was bombed by Egyptian planes… The Trans-Jordanian Legion captured the Jewish Quarter of the Old City… and began a massive bombardment whose aim was to cause losses among the civilian population, break their spirit and bring them to submission.’ Oz, op. cit., p. 357.
I spend so much time on this point because the acceptance of the partition by the Jews and its rejection by the Arabs is the fundamental cause of the conflict even today. If the Arabs had accepted the UN plan as did the Jews, there would be a Palestinian state today.
Mr Hansen then said ‘Dr Brooks… continues to deny the events Palestinians named ‘al nakba’, the catastrophe.’ This is not true; I have never denied any of the events, nor have I denied that Palestinians refer to the creation of Israel as ‘the catastropheְ. In my opinion, that the Palestinians were not willing to divide the land was indeed a catastrophe.
Finally, Mr Hansen said ‘you never see Dr Brooks referring to Palestinians. They are always the catch-all ‘Arabs’… to delegitimise Palestinians as a pre-existing people.’ This is also not true. I have no hesitation in using the term Palestinians, and I acknowledge their pre-existence (although it doesn’t go nearly as far back as that of the Jews). Nevertheless, the term Arabs was generally used at the time of the 1948 war (in the Wikipedia article cited, it appears 180 times) and it is commonly used today to describe Israeli Arabs —not ‘Israeli Palestinians’ (which they, indeed, are).
The precautionary principle alone should inform your views on this.
Sheer ignorance. If we have to we can have objects in space blocking a proportion of sunlight within 2 to 3 years of giving the go ahead. The would cost 1 or 2 trillion dollars, coincidentally the same amount Obama found for his stimulus package. There are many other ideas on how to change the global temperature quickly.
By the way, there are about 10,000 recognised climate scientists in the worlds
I can find you 10,000 hypochondriac MD’s if you like.
There are not 10,000 studies on anthropogenic climate catastrophe. Big, big difference. Researching rainfall in the Amazon or some such does not make you a global warming expert. Otherwise you could ask a group of Geologists about climate change, they study the Earth over millions of years and tend to fall on the other side of the climate change debate.
However, sigh, I patiently await the next ad hominem…
Yes you will use any mental backflip possible to avoid confronting the issues. You have not provided one piece of information to convince me of anything. The best you have is ‘Join my herd, its really big’
I believe the consequences of your beliefs are disgraceful, I believe the lazy minded willing such as yourself are the ones responsible for allowing poor and costly decisions to be made. Pro and anti global warming all know that the ETS’s are the wrong thing to do, they are occurring because of people like you.
Meanwhile, in occupied Palestine, Netanyahu is proudly parading his apparent victory over Obama in getting him to agree to Israel finishing off 3000 housing units in the West Bank before supposedly freezing future settlements.
To be honest, once Obama appointed Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff, Palestinians should have given up any hope they held for Obama. But they got seduced by the Cairo speech for a little while.
But now poor old Bibi is crying foul over Palestinians refusing to negotiate in the absence of an immediate freeze. Oh dear, poor Bibi, being bullied by those Palis again!
Bibi, of course, ignores the fact that even as Israel was supposedly negotiating a peace deal (Oslo) with a view to allowing Palestinians a viable state, it was expanding settlements at an ever increasing rate. Palestinians now know that Israel would continue to use negotiations as a cover to expand settlements even more, with the ultimate aim of gradually forcing Palestinians to leave occupied Palestine altogether.
The problem for Israel is that, in the long term, this firm Palestinian policy is very, very ominous for Israel.
Why?
For too long Palestinians have been seduced by extremists who dream of military victory over Israel. This is just cuckoo land stuff, of course. As the settlements expand, the option of a viable Palestinian state whithers on the vines. This leaves only one option for Palestinians to pursue: the option of full citizenship in historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.
If instead of futile oversized firecrackers Palestinians harnessed the modern vision of human rights and self determination, especially by organising an alternative narrative in the US to AIPAC, their struggle could be over within a couple of decades.
And they will have Bibi to thank for it.
Israel, always the more powerful entity, has two choices. It can accept the inevitability of a unified Palestine, or it can, as Benny Morris suggested Ben Gurion should have done, “finish the job,” and drive the Palestinians across the river, into Egypt, or into the sea, and suffer the opprobrium.
getstaffed, why don’t you tell us what you would cut in govt spending
Wrong approach. Decide a reasonable level of public spending as a % of GDP, and then prioritise actual need (as opposed to current areas of spend) and then apportion resources appropriately.
If that’s too hard for you then perhaps you could just look at these areas of public spending and make a decision of what to fund and what to discontinue.
Or we could continue down the socialist path of ever increasing spending against a backdrop of reduced tax take and productive businesses/people moving offshore.
“some of them are hopelessly clueless and think that Robbie Williams is the greatest musician alive”
I’m sorry Sonny, but there goes both sides of the global warming argument right there.
I think I’ll just ask the milkman. Or maybe the next Iraqi taxi driver who just happens to have a degree in civil engineering or medicine but whom, by all accounts, can only build roads and bridges or diagnose illness if there seems to be a bit of sand swirling about.
Further to my 8.14 post and Luc’s 8.20 comment on it, I’ve done a bit of digging, and anyone interested in the problems wind farms can cause for air traffic radar might find the following link worth while:
As a Kiwi of European ancestry, I have a sense of responsibility and shame for the dispossession and ongoing oppression of Palestinians at the hands of Europeans,
Bahahaahahahaha. My Gawwwwwwwwwwd, Puke. You really do revel in this guilt-ridden victim junk, don’t you? I love that massive logical disconnect, too. Phenomenal.
Surely the first requirement of a government is to address need. Ameliorating that need by long term policies should follow.
But you can’t just stick a flag in the dirt and say we will always spend this much on welfare, this much on education, this much on the armed services etc etc because you don’t know what’s around the corner.
And speaking of education, in light of the fact that our education outcomes, according to the OECD, are far in excess of what could be expected in view of our actual spending, should we reduce that spending and lower our outcomes to an average?
Sorry Luc. It’s not a wimpy response, just not the response you wanted. You asked for a details analysis of social implications of changes to public spending. I’m not in a position to give you that, neither are you in a position to furnish me/us with such details. I am in a position of offer opinion on principles, and I did that.
As for educational outcomes [odd that you'd dive into one area of detail, while demanding that others offer holistic analysis], if you’re happy with average achievement, and by inference are happy to let the ‘long tail’ (yes, that’s what it’s called!) wallow in underachievement then your brand of humanity needs some work.
Hurf’s been busy. I just noticed his 9:26pm message.
I did respond to that letter.
First, let’s look at this statement of Dr Brooks:
“I spend so much time on this point because the acceptance of the partition by the Jews and its rejection by the Arabs is the fundamental cause of the conflict even today. If the Arabs had accepted the UN plan as did the Jews, there would be a Palestinian state today.”
Why would Palestinians accept a takeover of their land by Europeans fleeing European persecution? The whole idea is nonsensical. But, of course, it’s what has happened. And if Israel is so keen on UNGA resolutions, what about 194, 273, recommending return of Palestinian refugees and UNSC 242 ordering a return to the pre-June 1967 armistice lines? And the hundreds of UNGA resolutions since recommending Israel stops oppressing Palestinians, and the many, many Security Council resolutions which would have been passed except for the US veto.
My view is the world’s majority view, Hurf.
Then look at the earlier statement, that historic Palestine was split into Transjordan and Palestine. The fact that Britain was granted the mandate over both lands and chose to split the mandate does not mean that historic Palestine was ever unified with Transjordan. Zwartz and Brooks very cleverly insert this into the Question of Palestine to muddy the waters.
The Jordan River was only ever an unofficial border until the British imposed one there to reserve historic Palestine for the European Jews. Under the Ottoman Empire, Tranjordan and Palestine were provinces, each with their own representation in the eventual Ottoman parliament.
As for Dr Brooks rebuttal that he was comfortable using the term Palestinian, well, I had not seen any evidence of that until I raised the issue. I’m quite proud of that
These days, since the 2002 Arab League offer that assured Israel of peace with the Arab world, and the efective abandonment of Palestine by the Arab states, the Question of Palestine is now truly a conflict between Palestinians and Israel.
Finally, who started the war in 1948? We know now that the Jews in Palestine were ethnically cleansing Palestinians from around Nov 1947 (Morris, Pappe, Segev etc). We also know that the Arab states did not want a confrontation with the west. But the unrest on the streets was such that a virtual mercenary force (except for the Jordanian army, which had prior agreement with Israel to take the West Bank and East Jerusalem) was sent to protect the Palestinians.
This is a fact. By May 1948, Israel had already expelled Palestinians even from areas which were intended by UNGA 181 to form part of the proposed Palestinian state.
And this is another fact. UNGA 181 did not envisage any population movements. Palestinians were to stay where they lived, and choose whether to become Israeli or Palestinian citizens. That’s how stupid 181 was. If you don’t believe me, just read the resolution!
I think you should be conversant with social implications of policies you advocate. I gave you a hint in my earlier post. It’s all very well to talk principles but you must be aware of facts on the ground.
It was always to Bolger’s credit that he kneecapped Richardson and Shipley when he saw the dreadful social havoc they were causing: do you remember the cash registers in our emergency rooms? That was before Eftpos!
I pick on education because it is topical right now and both you and I have an interest in that area. It’s interesting to see how you twisted my post. New Zealand should be proud that it punches above its weight in the achievement rankings in the OECD, but if you determine, for example, that a certain percentage of GDP be fixed for education, then you are in danger of lowering that ranking. I was being facetious with my suggestion of lowering achievement levels, as I suspect you well know.
Our so-called long tail is only relative to our three companion top ranking nations and they all have one thing in common – a lower wealth gap between the rich and the poor. This is achieved by directing more resources to the poor. And the OECD recommends that we do this specifically in education to reduce the tail. Note, not take from the achievers, but put EXTRA resources into the non-achievers.
Well knock me over with a feather… here’s something we agree on Luc: Give more resources to education and work to lift the bar.
The issue is, sadly, that the social and economic payback period for any genuine initiatives in this area is way beyond the aspirational lifespan of politicians (of all shades) whose most pressing need is to buy their way back into office every three years.
Just as well the world “majority” view is worthless then. If it wasn’t, everywhere would be socialist and 90% of my money would’ve flowed into the third world.
Awesome revisionism by the way, 10/10. Keep feeling the need to fight the power just because of your ancestry.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 am
“the European Union is drawing up plans for aircraft-style black-box recorders to be fitted to all cars to help the police identify who is responsible for crashes. The boxes will record 20 types of data, including speed, the car’s most recent movements and whether the driver braked or indicated.”
It’s an evil wind that blows…
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 am
” Halloween trick-or-treaters were given a fright when they found talkback radio personality Tim Bickerstaff dead in his Whitianga home on Saturday. ”
I guess that wasn’t a treat then.
Bizarre.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:12 am
Some more on sustainability from last week:
“Um, yeah, maybe, but if we run out of sufficient resources here, oil for example, it’s not going to help if there is abundant oil somewhere on the other side of the universe.”
We already commercially produce syntheized oil Pete.
http://www.ls9.com
We have adapted through every change of the last million years, we have survived ice ages and technological shifts that our recent forebears did not have the capacity to conceive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Conrad_Roentgen
Consider this man, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901 one of the best minds of his time, here are some words that he didn’t understand:
airport
antibiotic
antibody
antenna
computer
continental drift
tectonic plates
zipper
nylon
radio
television
robot
video
virus
gene
proton
neutron
atomic structure
quark
atomic bomb
nuclear energy
ecosystem
spacesuit
fingerprints
aerobics
jet stream
shell shock
shock wave
radio wave
microwave
IUD
DVD
MP3
MRI
HIV
SUV
VHS
whiplash
wind tunnel
carpal tunnel
fiber optics
direct dialing
dish antennas
corneal transplant
liver transplant
heart transplant
liposuction
transduction
maser
taser
laser
acrylic
penicillin
Internet
interferon
rayon
leotard
lap dancing
laparoscopy
arthroscopy
gene therapy
bipolar
moonwalk
spot welding
heat-seeking
Prozac
sunscreen
x-ray
It took us 70 years to get from this:
http://www.fotosearch.com/IST537/1193180/
to this:
http://www.fotosearch.com/BDX158/bxp31608/
All of you finite resources people will look like the gentlemen in the first picture to the people at the end of this century.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 am
Tuesday 3rd November is World Sandwich Day, named after John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, alleged populariser of food between bread. Just saying.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 am
With the increasingly sophisticated computors in modern cars that potential is probably available now or very close. My lovers car although not new, processes a lot of data before startup so it would be interesting to hear from one who has an understanding of what is possible here.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 am
“Recidivist paedophile avoids preventative detention”
5 previous convictions for sex related crimes against children and number 6 gets him 5 1/2 years, eligible for parole after 3 1/2.
The Judge says he considerd preventative detention? that is a huge discount from the Judge, who says he believes the guy will offend again !!
Hello, Judge, what if the next victim that you believe is out there, happens to be someone you love? How do you sleep at night?
And WTF is a 5 time convicted child sex offender doing out of prison anyway? 5 convictions! For sex crimes against kids. Walking free to commit crime number 6.
We can’t protect our children from assault, killers or sex offenders. Pathetic.Sad. Scary.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10606762
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
” Halloween trick-or-treaters were given a fright when they found talkback radio personality Tim Bickerstaff dead in his Whitianga home on Saturday. ”
Were they hoping to be given some Ignite tablets?
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/the-internet-has-done-for-scientology-could-it-rumble-the-christians-too/
“..While Hubbard’s cult gets ever more exposed .. it’s a shame other religions are not forced to justify their own doctrinal lunacies
Draw near, infidels, for these are dark days for the Knights of Hubbard.
Do not despair entirely – the Church of Scientology remains insanely rich, has excellent and rapacious lawyers ..
.. and according to the International Scientology News, “every minute of every hour, someone reaches for L Ron Hubbard technology …
.. simply because they know Tom Cruise is a Scientologist”.
So unless the world’s supply of troubled fools is melting away quicker than the Arctic ice cap ..
.. they can probably hold off trying to lure disaffected Kabbalists into their cultish communion ..
.. after the fashion of Pope Benedict and the Anglicans.
And yet, all things considered..
.. it has not been the best of weeks for our operating thetans..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 am
Leg Break – is that the Honey elixir that he used to promote that fixed the `soft bit in the middle’ of the old fella?
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 am
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/meat-eating-far-worse-than-thought-studyreplacing-livestock-products-with-better-alternatives-would-be-the-best-strategy-for-reversing-climate-change/
“..Climate change emissions from meat production are far higher than estimated ..
.. according to a controversial new study that will fuel the debate on whether people should eat fewer animal products to help the environment.
In a paper published by a respected United States think tank, the Worldwatch Institute ..
.. two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent.
They claim United Nations figures have severely underestimated the greenhouse gases caused by tens of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other animals in three main areas: ..
.. methane, land use and respiration.
Their findings – which are likely to prompt fierce debate among academics -
- come amid increasing calls from climate change experts for people to eat less meat.
In the 19-page report, Robert Goodland, a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, a current adviser, suggest domesticated animals cause 32 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2) ..
.. more than the combined impact of industry and energy.
The accepted figure is 18 per cent, taken from a landmark UN report in 2006, Livestock’s Long Shadow.
“If this argument is right,” write Goodland and Anhang ..
.. “it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives .. would be the best strategy for reversing climate change.
“In fact, this approach would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations ..
.. than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.”
Their call to move to meat substitutes accords with the views of the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri ..
.. who has described eating less meat as “the most attractive opportunity” for making immediate changes to climate change..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 am
Sonny said We have adapted through every change of the last million years, we have survived ice ages and technological shifts that our recent forebears did not have the capacity to conceive.
But Sonny, we are not amoeba floating in a primeval soup any more. How old is the modern human species, 100,000 years or so? And all those changes occurred during the development of the planet to it’s present state. This is the first actually caused or significantly to by humans.
But, hey, if enough want to return to the soup…well, be careful what you wish for!
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am
Here is some perspective showing the scale of our source of (infinite) energy, the sun:
http://www.kiroastro.com/writings/perspective
With the technology to harness this energy we are able to purify and distribute water (which covers 71% of the earth surface and 97% of the volume of living space, effectively infinite for human terms)
And access the 510,072,000 km² of minerals in the Earths 6-50km thick crust (currently 5% of land is developed by humans- which will decline in population as wealth increases in the future)
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Luc,
And at the turn of the century, Britons thought that London was going to drown in horse shit
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 am
Sonny,
What do you say to those who smoke cigarettes because by the time they get cancer, we’ll have cured it?
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 am
@pdm,
Not such a great advertisement for a natural herbal remedy really…
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 am
I don’t recall saying that I predict Humanity will become immortal.
But I’d say something similar to those who have increased their chance of death by taking vitamin supplements, due to the rapid advancement of knowledge and research, now we know better.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
There seem to be a lot of fans of the use up, mess up and rely on someone else to keep coming up with solutions club (sounds similar to the perpetual beneficiaries club). It is inevitable that some time the shit will hit the fans.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
I didn’t say you predicted humanity would become immortal.
It’s just that your attitude seems to be along the lines of, “We’ve dealt with every problem in the past, so there’s no point in anticipating problems in the future.”
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:36 am
Well ask the Neanderthal, Dodo, Mammoth, Moa, Easter Islanders, etc etc if the current issues are the first caused significantly by humans. Here and now is a very small frame of referance.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:39 am
Was going to? Try walking down Horse Guards after the Blues and Royals ride past.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:41 am
No Ryan,
We had problems in the past, and many of them have been dealt with (penicillin, x-rays, polio vaccine anti-biotics, calculators etc etc)
Anticipating and solving problems is something we have tens of thousands of scientists and entrepeneurs working on every day. Some of them are even pretty good at what they do.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Sonny,
What are the people saying who you’re disagreeing with here? I missed the first part of the conversation.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 am
“Q. Why will you never go hungry at the beach?”
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
Pete,
Have a look around at the improvements in mining technology over the last few decades.
The cleaning up will be done by the optimists Pete after all the cynics have given up and gone home.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 am
A: Because of the sand which is there…
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 am
I used to vote ACT, no longer.
Rodneys has behaved disgracefully and has a very short memory. No longer the perk buster, he is the perk chaser.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Ryan,
I just saw a few people on the Sustainability thread on Sat say that we are going to run out of resources, as has been claimed for the last few thousand years.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:55 am
Never in the last few thousand years (actually never) has the human population been 6.794 billion. In 1959 it was 3 billion. Forecast 9 billion by 2040.
That means humans don’t just have to try and sustain current levels of resources, they need to find a heap more or find alternatives. In thirty years we will need a third more (at the current standard of living).
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Wreck I can understand someone moving away from ACT because of Rodney.
In my opinion he has been the worst thing that could happen to ACT mainly because of his “Perk-buster” reputation.
This time, however, he has done nothing wrong, legally or ethically.
To dump ACT for bullshit like this would achieve a win for the slime – nothing else.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 am
Under the radar news from the US:
1. A comprehensive survey of US hospital records show that uninsured children are 60% more likely to die in hospital that insured children. The survey did not consider deaths of children not admitted to hospital. When this is combined with the recent Harvard study estimating 45,000 deaths per year as a direct consequence of lack of insurance, it all adds up to pretty horrifying picture.
And it appears the Obama administration has cut a deal with the health insurance industry over a Public Option: guess which party is getting the lion’s share of health industry lobbying money.
2. Corruption 1: two Judges caught accepting millions of dollars in bribes to send juvenile offenders to privately run prisons.
Corruption 2: Fully 50% of the members of a house committee responsible for military spending are under investigation (secret, but it got leaked) for ethics breaches.
Maybe item 1 should have filed under corruption as well.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 am
This would be slightly OT on the superannuation thread, but DPF outlines a bunch of issues that could be debated which made me think that Don Brash when Nat party leader once put this one forward: the longer you delayed taking super after reaching the age of eligibility, the higher your payments would be once you did take it. Was it him?! Good idea/bad idea?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
This time, however, he has done nothing wrong, legally or ethically.
silly Rodney…thinking with the little head..not the big head…
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 am
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/like-drunks-in-denial-mps-blow-off-truth-about-drugshorse-riding-is-more-dangerousthan-taking-ecstacy/
“..A good friend of mine, an almost lifelong heroin user who, more recently, has diversified into crack cocaine ..
.. and therefore requires a quick blast from an oxygen cylinder before going for a walk ..
.. rang me not so long ago with a warning: “Rod, I’m worried about your drinking,” he said. “You’ve really got to look after yourself.”
I couldn’t speak for a few moments, out of incredulity and indignation;..
.. I consume on average half a bottle of wine per day, which is too much, sure —
– but to be lectured by a crack-addled skaghead with half a lung .. and the facial complexion of that character in Munch’s The Scream ..
.. seemed, to me, pushing it.
He explained further: ..
..“In my profession [he’s a rock singer], the drunks check out in their forties and fifties.
We smackheads usually hold things together for another 20 years more.”
Colloquially — and with a few famous exceptions — he was right.
I was reminded of this when reading about the fate of the unfortunately named Professor Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ..
.. who has just been sacked by the government .. for similarly telling the truth.
Alan Johnson and the prime minister do not wish to have an advisory council which actually advises ..
.. which provides objective information that may run counter to what they believe they can get away with politically.
In the drugs debate, the truth should not be allowed to intervene too often; ..
..the truth is required to mind its Ps and Qs, keep quiet and wait in the hallway .. while policy is being decided.
David Nutt had made a few headline-grabbing quotes in an attempt to re-educate the public and the government about the comparative dangers of drugs.
The first was that ecstasy is less dangerous than horse-riding .. and no more addictive.
Regarding the word “addiction” in its strictly clinical context he is, of course, correct —
– although “dependency” is a different issue.
But he is also right — so far as I can work out — on the statistics.
On average 40 people die as a consequence of ecstasy every year;..
.. a low estimate would suggest that 1m tablets are consumed every week.
An estimated 100 people die as a consequence of horse-riding every year; ..
.. a very high estimate, based on government figures, suggests that there are about 600,000 horse rides every week.
So horse-riding is easily the more dangerous leisure option.
But, of course, this comparison produced apoplexy in the right-wing press.
One particularly idiotic columnist in the Daily Mail, dismissing the statistics with an airy wave of the hand ..
.. remarked that nonetheless horse-riding was not “inherently” dangerous.
I think she meant that people who ride horses tend to speak nicely and have labradors.
I can’t think what else she meant by “inherently”.
Incidentally, taking ecstasy while riding a horse is exponentially more dangerous ..
.. not least for the horse.
Nutt also pointed out the simple fact that cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol ..
.. pretty much regardless of the strength of the dope;..
.. nobody disputes this ..
.. and nobody disputed it three years ago when Nutt first made the comparison.
But at that point the government was busy trying to push through its bill to ban the smoking of tobacco in public places ..
.. and what is now an unfortunate truth .. was then a useful propaganda tool.
I have my own prejudices: ..
..I don’t like illegal drugs and, except for my friend mentioned above, I don’t like druggies.
I have a particular dislike for the drug of my own milieu, cocaine.
I often wonder to what extent the jabbering, self-obsessed, narcissistic bilge you read in your daily newspapers ..
.. is a consequence of several grams of Bolivian marching powder rammed up the left nostril ..
.. and how much because the writers are simply chemically unenhanced jabbering, self-obsessed narcissists:..
.. a bit of both, I would guess.
But advisers should advise, surely ..
.. and be especially commended for doing so when their advice runs counter to public opinion ..
and gets up the nose .. to use an inapt metaphor .. of critics..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
whoar:..’celebrating the good writing of others..since 2005′..
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Whoar, could you keep all this rubbish, trash, refuse, crap, to yourself? The bucket is getting full.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 am
Rodneys actions have damaged his personal integrity.
If he is willing to campaign against perks yet at the same time enjoying them, then how can you trust him?
Reminds me of Winston Peters stating he will not accept the baubles of office, then going on to not only accept them but to abuse them.
I’m in a dilemma, I like Acts policies, but their leader has lost integrity.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
I have just heard that it is;
(a) legal to masturbate while driving a car.
(b) Illegal to talk on a mobile phone while driving a car.
Which wanker came up with that law?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 am
I agree wreck.
though for me its some of their policies.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Whoar, could you keep all this rubbish, trash, refuse, crap, to yourself? The bucket is getting full.
there should be a 10 line maximum….
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
do we need room for your witticisms/wisdoms..do we star-bored..?
whenever yr ready..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Oh dear. A new strap-line.
More work to do ..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
whoar:..’celebrating unemployment..since … … forever really …’
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 am
starboard
I thought convention was that you only did two lines at a time …??
philh(woar.co.nz)
whoar:..’celebrating his stupidity … since … … forever really …’
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 am
star-bored..and the fan-of-the-crap-conspiracy-novel..
really should ‘get together’..eh..?
i f they pool their ‘talents’..
maybe they could get lucky..?
and come up with an idea..?..an ‘argument’..?
any demonstration of an ability to sling a thought or two together..?
any glimmer of anything really..!
would be a blessing…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 am
starboard
I thought convention was that you only did two lines at a time …??
yup..but thinkin about the rest who have more to say…excluding the whore who just belches pooze 50 lines at a time…
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:43 am
well actually little demented magpie …
gatherer of the shiny bits … eh??
…now celebrating what OTHERS write …
because you can’t … eh??
heh heh
you think I’m not thinking … eh?
about your training and career options …
when Paula comes around to sort you out ??
heh
and turns off the tap …
that feeds your trough …eh??
asks you why …
your legs don’t seem to work …
between 9.00am and 3.00pm ..
or is that really …
between 7.30 am and 4.00pm … eh??
will you be able to imitate the little magpie then ..
and hop quickly sideways …
to avoid Paula’s questions … eh??
heh
pil(whhoar.co.nz)
whoar:..’celebrating indolence … … forever really …’
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
FFs jeez guys, one ellipse addict here posting unreadable shit is bad enough without it spreading like a superbug!
I may very well write shit, and on that count I couldn’t possibly comment, but if I do at least it’s readable shit
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Where’s Sonny? I’ve been busy with baby who badly needed to sleep but steadfastly refused to go there until I played her the long version of Hallelujah. I’ve been trying to wean her off her love affair with Lenny but it seems a lost cause.
Anyway, back to Sonny. What’s his stance? It seems to be that we managed to evolve through all sorts of trials and tribulations therefore we will always survive. Is that it?
Dinosaurs roamed the earth for a couple of hundred million years and they got zapped. Something like 90% or more of the species earth has given rise to have died off. What makes him think we will be so special?
The human species will become extinct one day, at least on this planet. We will become barbequed by the sun, in a few million years, in the unlikely event that we even survive that long. To make the most of our time here, we need to face up to any threats to our wellbeing and ACT (and I’m not talking about Rodney) where we can.
It appears we can at least reduce the impact of global warming by changing our behaviour. Isn’t it all a bit silly to fight against an entirely reasonable and self-interested action plan?
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Phool, please, get back on the bong. It’s only noon and you’re already exciteable.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hurf%20durf
When hurf durf is seen, it is understood that whatever has been quoted and labeled as hurf durf is completely and utterly unreasonable and impossible of being taken seriously.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Congratulations, Puke, you’ve finally grasped it. If you would to know what my unique blend of rage and hilarity in verb form is, it is “to Hansen,” e.g. “I’ve just Hansened on General Debate and now Puke is sobbing into his kaffiyeh.”
Would you like a gold star?
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I would suggest 99% of species are becoming extinct Luc.
We have to come to terms with the fact the we have an irreversible effect on the rest of the planet and are going to have to decide which species to let go extinct.
My point is it is human (and animal) nature to be fearful and paranoid. I believe overcoming our base fears is an impotant part of furthering our society. Our entire society is a result of overcoming our fears and pooling our resources, the people that are to fearful of this become isolationists and suffer as a result.
Every day there is reason to expect impending doom, and throughout history, people have always thought that disaster was imminent. Here are the titles of some modern movies:
Armageddon (1998) Deep Impact (1998) Dante’s Peak (1997) The Day After Tomorrow (2004) The Perfect Storm (2000) Waterworld (1995) Twister (1996) Backdraft (1991) Volcano (1997) 28 Days Later (2002) Signs (2002) Cabin Fever (2003) Children of Men (2006) The Happening (2008) I Am Legend (2007) The Invasion (2007) Outbreak (1995) Quarantine (2008) Wall-e (2008) Chain Reaction (1996) Eagle Eye (2008) Live Free or Die Hard (Die Hard 4.0) (2007) I, Robot (2004) The Peacemaker (1997) The Sum of All Fears (2002) Watchmen (2009) Final Destination (2000) Passenger 57 (1992) Snakes on a Plane (2006) Turbulence (1997) Air Force One (1997) Speed (1994) Crimson Tide (1995) K-19: The Widowmaker (2002) Poseidon (2006) The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) Jurassic Park (1993) King Kong (2005) Cloverfield (2008)
We like disasters, we like crises. We are programmed to worry about what might harm or kill us, as our intelligence increases, we have become more and more imaginative about what might go wrong. We need to grow up from being like little kids afraid of the dark. The difficulty we have is that each generation forgets that we have been wrong each and every time previously we have thought that the end is nigh. The problem with climate change is that by the time it is clear that we will be ok, we are going to move onto the next scare and people like Luc will scream ‘but you can’t prove I’m wrong, a meteor could hit your house tomorrow’ because it is in the nature of those of us who cannot overcome our base fears.
Yes, every thing previously has become extinct for whatever reason and so will we eventually, but overall evolution has progressed from soup to amoeba in invertebrates to vetebrates to us. We have crossed several thresholds of evolution and our minds have become one of the key factors in future evolution. We are natures latest solution to deciding the shape of what comes after us, we are not some cancer to be expurged.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Just a thought, if technological advances continue at the same rate as the last 100 years what will 100 years from now be like? Not that any of us will still be alive to see it……or will we?
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Life in this blog just gets weirder by the day.
So now movie titles fortell our future. Ah well, I suppose that’s an advance on Nostradamus.
I would suggest your closing sentence is the ultimate in the human hubris that could see us extinct sooner rather later.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Hurf
I’m honoured that you think so highly of me :blush:
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Luc,
Humans tell stories, it reflects our psyche. Movies are our modern stories.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
No surprise in seeing drug and alcohol policy is more and more controlled by uneducated unscientific knee jerk reaction, both here and the UK (and the US).
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10606766
Also great little spoof highlighting that what Fox does.
http://www.thedailyshow.com%252Fwatch%252Fthu-october-29-2009%252Ffor-fox-sake-&h=686608f951ab32ec7927fada1fe72ab3&ref=mf
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Iprent at the sub strandard has got his titties in a tangle today..be careful
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
NY-23 gets more interesting:
Palin (and other Republicans) praise Scozzafava for acting “selflessly” by pulling out.
Scozzafava (the original republican selected candidate) has now endorsed Democrat Bill Owens.
The result will largely be determined by who actually votes, special elections typically have very low turnouts (this favours the conservative vote usually).
A bit of conventional wisdom has developed that Democrats should be rooting for Hoffman because it will embolden conservatives to nominate more conservative, but less electable Republican candidates in other races.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
We really aren’t, you know.
It’s not a case of “It’s us or the haddock.” We’re not going to improve our chances of survival because we have a panda holocaust. It’s more likely to be the other way around – the more animals we kill, the more we upset the millions of years old ecosystem and the more likely we are to cash our chips in.
But if you insist. I’m just going outside to do my bit for humanity by stomping some cats to death.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
mike king and safe are on campbell tonight..
with another report on the pig industry..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
My point Chris, is that with or without humans, some or all of Kakapos, Pandas, Takahe, Tigers, Rhinos, etc etc will go extinct. And species becoming extinct because of human effects are inevitable and perfectly natural also. The advanced evolution of our intellects leads us to try to protect these species (we have a symbiotic relationship with many different animals for very diverse reasons). But we cannot keep this up for all species indefinitely as inevitably the cost will become excessive and the idea of freezing an animal at a certain stage of its evolution will become less important. Eventually we will have to decide to turn the life support off for some species. It is going to be a difficult decision, but I see that we are going to have to face up to doing it eventually.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
By the way, its not really a millions of years old ecosystem, it is constantly changing and evolving. The ecosystem is considerably different than it was a million years ago, off the top of my head there are no more Mammoth, Sabre Tooths, Woolly Rhinos, Neanderthals, Dodo, Moa, Aurochs, etc etc.
I am reminded of a description I heard from a scientist somewhere ‘The Earth is as tough as old boots’.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
This seems to be a common head in the sand lefty response. We have an unremovable impact on almost all life over the whole Earth, it is pointless to pretend otherwise.
The truth is not arrogant and is not reason to detest ourselves. There is no ‘Mother Nature’ or whatever that we are in opposition with.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
No, because man killed them all.
We’re very powerful, and bring rapid and destructive change to eco-systems large and small.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Just like Elephants, Locusts, Mice and many other animals can be.
We are also capable of very rapid recovery of ecosystems as shown by marine and bush sanctuaries such as Goat Island and Karori, where we are able to protect animals from even the predators that they would be facing naturally.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
If only we had green liberal hippies around during the time of the mammoths, sabre tooths…………..the Neanderthals would have killed us.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I lost your point, Sonny.
Are we supposed to be using our powers to do something and create sanctuaries, or not doing anything because they’re going to die anyway – as long as we don’t kill them – or actively killing them because they’re going to die anyway and we should be looking after ourselves?
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Both at the same time Chris, its not that hard to fathom even if lefties prefer a black and white picture.
We are going to have to get over the idea of a species becoming extinct, we can’t expect a process that as always occurred to disappear with our appearance. Not that I don’t think we should try hard to save as many as possible, but the cause of some of these extinctions is going to be in our hands.
And more well planned sancturies and such will have a positive effect on wildlife. Most ecosystems are remarkably recoverable and it is well within our capabilities to do so.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
he’s not the sharpest blade in the knife shop..that blount..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
he’s not the sharpest blade in the knife shop..that blount..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
pot…kettle….
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
According to Sonny, 97% of the world’s climate scientists are “lefty” because they agree that the planet is warming. And 80% of the same scientists attribute this warming at least partially to human activity. That’s a lot of leftists in the one profession.
And Gareth Morgan. a high priest of laissez faire economics (no disrespect intended, just by way of explanation) who’s book Poles Apart dissects the science and polemics to come down squarely on the side of those climate scientists.
So let’s just forget the ideological divide and focus on the facts. This is not of the left or the right. Just have a look at all the right wing leaders who also side with the scientists.
Sonny may wish to leave our survival to the throw of the dice (and remember, Einstein said God doesn’t play dice) but I don’t.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Luc,
It is you that is leaving our future to the throw of the dice. I’m waiting for verified empirical data before fucking everybodies futures.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Some of them were due to climate change actually, real climate change from 5 to 14 deg rather than make than the 0.6 deg that has the idiots all worked up.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Sonny, you are the creationist of climate change.
Just tell me this, please: what’s your problem with accepting the consensus view of the vast majority of trained, qualified scientists that climate change is occurring and it is at least in part due to human activity.
Are you a trained climate scientist? Like many people, you have probably read lots in support of your view, but have you read the other side, like Poles Apart?
Me, I’m not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. i go with the overwhelming consensus. Mind you, I am a sceptic on ETS and carbon taxes, but that’s another topic.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Cattle found on Council land.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10606829&ref=rss
It’s you Phool isn’t it. You gave the cattle freedom, drove them up the hill from Long Bay and parked them on Council Land.
Now the Council is investigating. First, how many are cows and how many are steers? Will we ever know, we are talking townies here, they don’t know the difference between cows, steers or queers.
Sideshowbob, the North Shore Shitty Council needs you.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Ooooo, I’ll answer that. The problems I have with this are that :-
(a) The scientists are fed non-peer reviewed data, which in many cases has been shown to be scientifically fraudulent and, further, that they’re not given access to the source information
(b) Their research is predicated on finding proof of something that has been pre-determined (Global warming)
(c) Their research funding would be cut off, and they would be subjected to ridicule (which they have supported and/or evidenced) if they were to produce findings that didn’t support result pre-determined as per (b)
(d) They are not the vast majority, simply the majority that are most substantially funded and have the ear of the global MSM – who profit from promoting alarmist/extremist stories.
(e) That none of Al Gore, Bono or Keisha Castle-Hughes are trained scientists, yet they receive 100x the MSM coverage of
trained scientists who dare to question the religion of climate change.
.. and bugger, I’ve run out of time to list the rest !!
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
New topic for a minute…
Does anyone know anything about wind farms (for power generation) interfering with aviation radar? I don’t seem to recall reading it is a consideration in NZ, but it seems to be an issue overseas.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
getstaffed, thank you for your time.
May I ask you this: do you think all out carbon emissions, including those from fossil fuels and intensive animal farming, do no harm to the environment?
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
jack5, I’ve heard of wind farms scaring the horses, but that’s a new one on me!
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Another bone folks…
Compare NZ’s weak, hands-off attitude to the soaring kiwi dollar with what some other countries are doing to try to dampen down their currencies:
Brazil has imposed a 2% tax on foreign-investment inflows. Canada says it may begin buying dollars for the first time in ten years, and the Bank of Japan may do the same.
South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Thailand are all intervening to dampen their currencies.
Meanwhile, the NZ position is by contrast apathetic, weak, and resigned to the will of speculators. We could at least be trying to keep a lid on the overpriced kiwi dollar.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
..the good oil says .80 by xmas…
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
From stuff:
Would the welcome mat be rolled out if I arrived at LAX and declared that I had swine flu?
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Jack5 – if Kiwi’s (incl the govt) stopped spending beyond our means then we’d not need the same levels of foreign borrowings, and interest rates would fall.. and along with it the NZD. Just my theory.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
The words of a true moron.
I am an intelligent person, I can understand science. I expect scientists to be able to clearly lay out their research for others to see. The problem with climate change is mainly to do with the conclusions made from the research, there is no research that unequivocally shows that climate change is going to be a problem. If there is, please explain it to me, I am intelligent enough not to be jump into line just because someone says that other people hold a particular point of view.
When I see clear data I will review my opinion. You have not produced any and I wouldn’t be suprised if you have formed your views without knowing what particular piece of scientific research has led you there. Please name the scientist and the data that provides the evidence you trumpet.
There is a clear difference between scientific research and the conclusions and conjectures people make out of it. Beyond being professional researchers, scientists are people like you and me, I know plenty of them and consider some of them to be great people, some of them are hopelessly clueless and think that Robbie Williams is the greatest musician alive. They all vote in elections and buy lotto tickets and drink in the weekends, I don’t hang on their every word. Sometimes they do very good research and form ridiculous opinions from it.
Almost nobody knows who the scientists in the ‘consensus’ are or how this consensus is established or challenged. It is an extremely unorthodox way to talk about science. The majority of scientists within this ‘consensus’ are undoubtably not experts on climate change, I would say the number who are is very close to 0. I suspect that the true opinions of the scientific community are close to equally divided at the moment.
Telling me 1000 idiots agree with each other is not a very convincing argument. I consider there to be a very high burden of proof before billions of dollars of peoples hard earned work is thrown at an idea, we are a long way from reaching the threshold of evidence required. All those people who think it will be too late to wait for proof are twice as thick as the rest.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Further to the above, I am not a magpie and I forget the details and don’t collect everything I read. But off the top of my head I can recall Chris Landsea as a scientist who has written for the IPCC and who has serious issues with they way they conduct themselves. You can google his resignation letter easily enough.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
getstaffed, why don’t you tell us what you would cut in govt spending, how much by, and the projected social consequences? Be specific. And remember you need to rein in spending by a couple of hundred million per week.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
This is a completely different question to whether anthropogenic climate catastrophe will be a problem, either get to the point or display some understanding of the topic.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Sonny
The precautionary principle alone should inform your views on this. But I still don’t get what your problem is with this topic.
What people fail to grasp is that combating global warming is a business opportunity much more than a cost. New technologies and industries will flower. And we will hopefully alleviate the worst effects, if those effects do come to pass. If they don’t, we are still better off because we have advanced our knowledge.
To me, it’s win win. The idea is not to panic. Our scientists are not lemmings diving off a cliff. All they can do is interpret the available data. As new data comes to light, their conclusions may change. Who knows?
By the way, there are about 10,000 recognised climate scientists in the worlds, and about 3500 replied to the survey. The rest are probably too busy researching to reply.
However, sigh, I patiently await the next ad hominem…
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Sonny said: This is a completely different question to whether anthropogenic climate catastrophe will be a problem…
I think ANY climate catastrophe, whether anthropogenic or not, WILL be a problem.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
This is a particularly relevant point. A few months ago I read a study which showed that playing computer games is good for the eyes as the stimulation was good exercise, I have seen many studies that say screens are bad for your eyes.
I lived with a guy doing a PhD on coffee, he loved the stuff and managed to find plenty of data that it would turn you into superman. I’m sure we’ve all seen data about the negatives of coffee.
There was a study released showing beer was a preservative of heart muscle the same week as another showed it was a carcinogen.
There has been $30 billion dollars directed towards researching global warming, usually asking the wrong question. BP has spent $30 million. The flow of money does effect the science, this is why we know alot more about Coffee Beans than we do about Pistachio Nuts.
Some opinions from scientists:
“We simply cannot afford to gamble… by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climactic instability are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.”
1978 Lowell Ponte. The Cooling.
“the battle to feed all of humanity is over … In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
“India couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980,” or “be self-sufficient in food by 1971.”
Paul R Ehrlich. New Scientist and The Population Bomb 1968.
“Julian L. Simon and Paul Ehrlich entered in a famous wager in 1980, betting on a mutually agreed upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. Ehrlich ultimately lost the bet, and all five commodities that were selected as the basis for the wager have continued to trend downward until 2002″
The Simon-Ehrlich Wager. Wikipedia.
“Things are only going to get more confusing…The point of absolute certainty will never come…Nevertheless, I am assuming at least a twelve month disruption of basic goods and services, including periods of;
No electrical power
No clean water
No telecommunications
Shortages of food, gasoline, clothing, and all retail goods
Widespread bank failures and inaccessibility of funds
Stock market crash
Dramatic drop in real estate values
Economic depression
Widespread unemployment
Civil unrest, including protests, riots and general lawlessness”
Michael S Hyatt. The Y2K Personal Survival Guide 1999.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
And?
The Earth has regular climat changes from 5 to 15 degrees celcius and back again, most of the Earths species survive through the changes. The polar bears that used to live in the Meditaranean didn’t do so well though.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Luc Hansen attacked my recent statements (21.02.09), calling them ‘red herrings represented as cast-iron facts’, and ‘Israeli propaganda.’ He said he wants ‘independent verification.’ I’m happy to oblige.
In an earlier letter, David Zwartz provided verification for my statement that ‘historic Palestine… was divided… into Jordan, Israel and a Palestinian state’, so I will move on to Mr Hansen’s surprising denial that Arabs started the 1948 war — a fact that is almost universally accepted. E.g.,
‘As independence was declared, Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel.’ Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.
Ben-Gurion declared independence on 14 May… Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly-established state. — Wikipedia: 1948 Arab-Isareli War.
A more detailed picture of events was supplied by Amos Oz, an eye-witness. ‘A few hours later [after the UN voted to create the Jewish state ]… shots were fired at a Jewish ambulance… All over the country Arabs attacked Jewish buses on the highways, killed and wounded passengers, and fired with light arms and machine guns into outlying suburbs and isolated settlements.’, Amos Oz, Tales of Love and Darkness, p. 346.
‘At one minute past midnight [May 15], without war being declared, the infantry columns, artillery and armour of the regular Arab armies poured into the country, from Egypt to the south, Trans-Jordan and Iraq to the east and Lebanon and Syria to the north. On Saturday morning Tel Aviv was bombed by Egyptian planes… The Trans-Jordanian Legion captured the Jewish Quarter of the Old City… and began a massive bombardment whose aim was to cause losses among the civilian population, break their spirit and bring them to submission.’ Oz, op. cit., p. 357.
I spend so much time on this point because the acceptance of the partition by the Jews and its rejection by the Arabs is the fundamental cause of the conflict even today. If the Arabs had accepted the UN plan as did the Jews, there would be a Palestinian state today.
Mr Hansen then said ‘Dr Brooks… continues to deny the events Palestinians named ‘al nakba’, the catastrophe.’ This is not true; I have never denied any of the events, nor have I denied that Palestinians refer to the creation of Israel as ‘the catastropheְ. In my opinion, that the Palestinians were not willing to divide the land was indeed a catastrophe.
Finally, Mr Hansen said ‘you never see Dr Brooks referring to Palestinians. They are always the catch-all ‘Arabs’… to delegitimise Palestinians as a pre-existing people.’ This is also not true. I have no hesitation in using the term Palestinians, and I acknowledge their pre-existence (although it doesn’t go nearly as far back as that of the Jews). Nevertheless, the term Arabs was generally used at the time of the 1948 war (in the Wikipedia article cited, it appears 180 times) and it is commonly used today to describe Israeli Arabs —not ‘Israeli Palestinians’ (which they, indeed, are).
http://www.kbrm.org.nz/letters.html
Teeheehee.
You do get around, don’t you Puke?
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Sheer ignorance. If we have to we can have objects in space blocking a proportion of sunlight within 2 to 3 years of giving the go ahead. The would cost 1 or 2 trillion dollars, coincidentally the same amount Obama found for his stimulus package. There are many other ideas on how to change the global temperature quickly.
I can find you 10,000 hypochondriac MD’s if you like.
There are not 10,000 studies on anthropogenic climate catastrophe. Big, big difference. Researching rainfall in the Amazon or some such does not make you a global warming expert. Otherwise you could ask a group of Geologists about climate change, they study the Earth over millions of years and tend to fall on the other side of the climate change debate.
Yes you will use any mental backflip possible to avoid confronting the issues. You have not provided one piece of information to convince me of anything. The best you have is ‘Join my herd, its really big’
I believe the consequences of your beliefs are disgraceful, I believe the lazy minded willing such as yourself are the ones responsible for allowing poor and costly decisions to be made. Pro and anti global warming all know that the ETS’s are the wrong thing to do, they are occurring because of people like you.
Idiot.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Meanwhile, in occupied Palestine, Netanyahu is proudly parading his apparent victory over Obama in getting him to agree to Israel finishing off 3000 housing units in the West Bank before supposedly freezing future settlements.
To be honest, once Obama appointed Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff, Palestinians should have given up any hope they held for Obama. But they got seduced by the Cairo speech for a little while.
But now poor old Bibi is crying foul over Palestinians refusing to negotiate in the absence of an immediate freeze. Oh dear, poor Bibi, being bullied by those Palis again!
Bibi, of course, ignores the fact that even as Israel was supposedly negotiating a peace deal (Oslo) with a view to allowing Palestinians a viable state, it was expanding settlements at an ever increasing rate. Palestinians now know that Israel would continue to use negotiations as a cover to expand settlements even more, with the ultimate aim of gradually forcing Palestinians to leave occupied Palestine altogether.
The problem for Israel is that, in the long term, this firm Palestinian policy is very, very ominous for Israel.
Why?
For too long Palestinians have been seduced by extremists who dream of military victory over Israel. This is just cuckoo land stuff, of course. As the settlements expand, the option of a viable Palestinian state whithers on the vines. This leaves only one option for Palestinians to pursue: the option of full citizenship in historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.
If instead of futile oversized firecrackers Palestinians harnessed the modern vision of human rights and self determination, especially by organising an alternative narrative in the US to AIPAC, their struggle could be over within a couple of decades.
And they will have Bibi to thank for it.
Israel, always the more powerful entity, has two choices. It can accept the inevitability of a unified Palestine, or it can, as Benny Morris suggested Ben Gurion should have done, “finish the job,” and drive the Palestinians across the river, into Egypt, or into the sea, and suffer the opprobrium.
It would be a big gamble.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Excellent choice of music BTW.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Thank you Sonny.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Wrong approach. Decide a reasonable level of public spending as a % of GDP, and then prioritise actual need (as opposed to current areas of spend) and then apportion resources appropriately.
If that’s too hard for you then perhaps you could just look at these areas of public spending and make a decision of what to fund and what to discontinue.
Or we could continue down the socialist path of ever increasing spending against a backdrop of reduced tax take and productive businesses/people moving offshore.
So a few approaches. Take your pick.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Sonny B
“some of them are hopelessly clueless and think that Robbie Williams is the greatest musician alive”
I’m sorry Sonny, but there goes both sides of the global warming argument right there.
I think I’ll just ask the milkman. Or maybe the next Iraqi taxi driver who just happens to have a degree in civil engineering or medicine but whom, by all accounts, can only build roads and bridges or diagnose illness if there seems to be a bit of sand swirling about.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Further to my 8.14 post and Luc’s 8.20 comment on it, I’ve done a bit of digging, and anyone interested in the problems wind farms can cause for air traffic radar might find the following link worth while:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/5383658/Wind-farms-could-pose-danger-to-planes-without-new-air-traffic-control-radar-system.html
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
As a Kiwi of European ancestry, I have a sense of responsibility and shame for the dispossession and ongoing oppression of Palestinians at the hands of Europeans,
Bahahaahahahaha. My Gawwwwwwwwwwd, Puke. You really do revel in this guilt-ridden victim junk, don’t you? I love that massive logical disconnect, too. Phenomenal.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Cheers Hurf
can you enlarge on the logical disconnect?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Jack5
Seems logical to me. Law of unintended consequences strikes again.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
getstaffed, that’s a wimpy response.
Surely the first requirement of a government is to address need. Ameliorating that need by long term policies should follow.
But you can’t just stick a flag in the dirt and say we will always spend this much on welfare, this much on education, this much on the armed services etc etc because you don’t know what’s around the corner.
And speaking of education, in light of the fact that our education outcomes, according to the OECD, are far in excess of what could be expected in view of our actual spending, should we reduce that spending and lower our outcomes to an average?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Sorry Luc. It’s not a wimpy response, just not the response you wanted. You asked for a details analysis of social implications of changes to public spending. I’m not in a position to give you that, neither are you in a position to furnish me/us with such details. I am in a position of offer opinion on principles, and I did that.
As for educational outcomes [odd that you'd dive into one area of detail, while demanding that others offer holistic analysis], if you’re happy with average achievement, and by inference are happy to let the ‘long tail’ (yes, that’s what it’s called!) wallow in underachievement then your brand of humanity needs some work.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Prince William is coming to New Zealand in January 2010 for an Official visit because of an invite from the New Zealand Government.
Interest.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Hurf’s been busy. I just noticed his 9:26pm message.
I did respond to that letter.
First, let’s look at this statement of Dr Brooks:
“I spend so much time on this point because the acceptance of the partition by the Jews and its rejection by the Arabs is the fundamental cause of the conflict even today. If the Arabs had accepted the UN plan as did the Jews, there would be a Palestinian state today.”
Why would Palestinians accept a takeover of their land by Europeans fleeing European persecution? The whole idea is nonsensical. But, of course, it’s what has happened. And if Israel is so keen on UNGA resolutions, what about 194, 273, recommending return of Palestinian refugees and UNSC 242 ordering a return to the pre-June 1967 armistice lines? And the hundreds of UNGA resolutions since recommending Israel stops oppressing Palestinians, and the many, many Security Council resolutions which would have been passed except for the US veto.
My view is the world’s majority view, Hurf.
Then look at the earlier statement, that historic Palestine was split into Transjordan and Palestine. The fact that Britain was granted the mandate over both lands and chose to split the mandate does not mean that historic Palestine was ever unified with Transjordan. Zwartz and Brooks very cleverly insert this into the Question of Palestine to muddy the waters.
The Jordan River was only ever an unofficial border until the British imposed one there to reserve historic Palestine for the European Jews. Under the Ottoman Empire, Tranjordan and Palestine were provinces, each with their own representation in the eventual Ottoman parliament.
As for Dr Brooks rebuttal that he was comfortable using the term Palestinian, well, I had not seen any evidence of that until I raised the issue. I’m quite proud of that
These days, since the 2002 Arab League offer that assured Israel of peace with the Arab world, and the efective abandonment of Palestine by the Arab states, the Question of Palestine is now truly a conflict between Palestinians and Israel.
Finally, who started the war in 1948? We know now that the Jews in Palestine were ethnically cleansing Palestinians from around Nov 1947 (Morris, Pappe, Segev etc). We also know that the Arab states did not want a confrontation with the west. But the unrest on the streets was such that a virtual mercenary force (except for the Jordanian army, which had prior agreement with Israel to take the West Bank and East Jerusalem) was sent to protect the Palestinians.
This is a fact. By May 1948, Israel had already expelled Palestinians even from areas which were intended by UNGA 181 to form part of the proposed Palestinian state.
And this is another fact. UNGA 181 did not envisage any population movements. Palestinians were to stay where they lived, and choose whether to become Israeli or Palestinian citizens. That’s how stupid 181 was. If you don’t believe me, just read the resolution!
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 pm
I think you should be conversant with social implications of policies you advocate. I gave you a hint in my earlier post. It’s all very well to talk principles but you must be aware of facts on the ground.
It was always to Bolger’s credit that he kneecapped Richardson and Shipley when he saw the dreadful social havoc they were causing: do you remember the cash registers in our emergency rooms? That was before Eftpos!
I pick on education because it is topical right now and both you and I have an interest in that area. It’s interesting to see how you twisted my post. New Zealand should be proud that it punches above its weight in the achievement rankings in the OECD, but if you determine, for example, that a certain percentage of GDP be fixed for education, then you are in danger of lowering that ranking. I was being facetious with my suggestion of lowering achievement levels, as I suspect you well know.
Our so-called long tail is only relative to our three companion top ranking nations and they all have one thing in common – a lower wealth gap between the rich and the poor. This is achieved by directing more resources to the poor. And the OECD recommends that we do this specifically in education to reduce the tail. Note, not take from the achievers, but put EXTRA resources into the non-achievers.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
the above is for getstaffed
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Well knock me over with a feather… here’s something we agree on Luc: Give more resources to education and work to lift the bar.
The issue is, sadly, that the social and economic payback period for any genuine initiatives in this area is way beyond the aspirational lifespan of politicians (of all shades) whose most pressing need is to buy their way back into office every three years.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Yes, we are as one on this!
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:03 am
Just as well the world “majority” view is worthless then. If it wasn’t, everywhere would be socialist and 90% of my money would’ve flowed into the third world.
Awesome revisionism by the way, 10/10. Keep feeling the need to fight the power just because of your ancestry.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 am
Maybe its escaped you, Hurf, but I do have a sense of justice as well.
But by all means, just keep living up to your pseudonym.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 am
That’s nice. “Social” justice? Redistribution of wealth? How is that sense? Tingly? Or is it more of a throb?