This entry was posted
on Wednesday, November 4th, 2009 at 7:42 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.
List Members, 52 of them in this current Parliament, are there to provide Party percentages.
So why not just stick with the locally representative Electorate Members and apply to them the percentages that the Party Vote [and so proportional List Members] otherwise provide.
It would work this way . . .
• The Vegetable Party gets 5 Electorate Members but 30% Party Vote. Don’t add another [122 x 30% = 36.6 - 5 =] 31.6 Vegie List Members to the 5 Electorate Vegetables.
• Just give these five Vegie Electorate Members a 6% vote each.
• The Fruit Party gets 11 Electorate Members and 45% of the Party Vote.
Don’t calculate [122 x 45 = 54.9 - 11 =] 43.9 List Members, nor round Vegie’s 31.6 up to 32, and Fruit’s 43.9 up to 44 and be 2 List Members out already.
• Just give each of those original eleven Fruit Electorate Members a 4.09090*% vote.
Four point zero nine zero nine repeating percent vote each? – bloody hell, how complicated. Not really, that’s what you have a computer for, or a competent intermediate [Year 7-8] school kid with a calculator.
Of course the only time you’d have to use anything other than a Party vote, would be in the case of a conscience vote, which in all conscience should be done away with any way! But if you have to keep it, use the computer [probably could be programmed by the earlier-mentioned school kid]
There are seven political parties represented in the current 49th Parliament by 122 members. I am unclear as to whether one, the Speaker, may always vote. But 122 votes or 121, by percentage, it amounts to 0.819672131148% or 0.826446280992% per Member of Parliament. So that’s the current simple system in percentages.
What I suggest is no more complex, but does away with the List Members. In fact you can also do away with nearly all the Electorate Members too – for the current seven party Parliament you could run it with seven people, in theory. Their votes would just amount to different percentages to represent the Election Day Party Vote. A Party Leader would represent parties that poll over the 5% thresh-hold but don’t gain an Electorate seat.
IT”S THE LIST MEMBERS WHO APPARENTLY PISS PEOPLE OFF [according to polls] SO GET RID OF THEM.
The truly good news of this story is the assault charges were dropped on condition they plead guilty to the possession of offensive weapons, ie police style extendable batons. We cannot have armed morons roaming the streets – there are enough armed brown brothers already roaming the streets and the police have enough work dealing with them, without also having to deal with the self appointed self righteous nutbars.
Yes when you get a lot of brain damaged yokel types with batons (or pitchforks, following the lead of their ancestors) engaging in vigilante behaviour it is a worrying sign.
Shame on the Police; this will be a classic case of the local PC Plod not wanting to be blackballed from the local pub so he neglects his duty to enforce the law to be ‘Mr Popular’.
So borker – what do you suggest people do when the Police can’t or won’t protect their community? Stand by and do nothing and let crims and vandals destroy their property?
These people were doing what they were doing because the NZPolice weren’t doing their job?
I think we need to change both the law and the culture within the police and crown Law towards self defence by citizens.
This is an issue of competency, as part of the reason for the surveillance bill right now, is the lack of competency of the NZPolice in that area of operations.
Lanny Davis, former White House counsel for Bill Clinton, says some of his fellow Democrats privately encourage him to keep appearing on Fox — even as they boycott the network themselves.
“I get very positive but whispered reinforcement,” he said.
Davis made news during last year’s Democratic presidential primaries when he said that Fox was the fairest of the cable networks in its treatment of Hillary Clinton.
And now, he insists, the claims of bias directed at Fox are overstated, at least insofar as they come from devotees of one of its competitors.
“Is there a difference between Fox and MSNBC?” he asked. “You count the number of guests on Rachel [Maddow] and Keith [Olbermann] who are conservative Republicans. If you get to double digits, I’ll buy you dinner for each one.”
Susan Estrich – campaign manager for Mike Dukakis in 1988.
“They are the most professional network of any I have dealt with,” he said. “If you are a Democrat who wants to deliver mindless talking points on Fox, it’s probably best to go to MSBNC and hope you get a chance to recite them. I think Fox encourages critical views of all sides, asks different kinds of questions and wants to have diversity of view.”
My favourite was from Bob Beckel …a true-blue Democrat who worked for Robert F. Kennedy and ran Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign
“I talk to more persuadable voters in a month than anybody on MSNBC and CNN talks to in a year.”
Perhaps the penny is finally dropping on the other US networks. Here’s Joe Scarborough on MSNBC – performing an off-the-cuff, piss-take of the rantings of one of theirs – Olbermann-the-Insane.
Question for Oral Answer to the Minister of Transport:
How much taxpayer money is spent on roadside/TV/Print etc regarding advertising road safety messages annually?
Supplementary:
What safety messages, if any, are there printed on an infringement notice given to a motorist for breaking a road rule?
Supplementary
Wouldn’t it make sense to have road safety messages printed on infringement notices to target those who have broken a law? And if not why not?
Question to the Minister of Transport:
What taxpayers money, if any, is dedicated to actively promoting Defensive Driving lessons?
Supplementary:
Does the Minister agree that having a system where by any infringement notice dollar amount and subsequent demerit points, could be reduced or eliminated if the person who has broken the law could then present a certificate indicating that they had succesfully completed a defensive driving course. And does the Minister concur that this option could only be used once by any motorist over a five year period?
IrishBill: It’s never an easy decision to pull another poster’s work but after some reflection I’ve decided this post constitutes an unwarranted personal attack and is out of line with the Standard’s policies and direction and have therefore removed it.
20 Responses to “The myth of objective journalism”
..eddie at the sub standard has been reprimanded and had post removed for writing a snotty bitchy blah about C Espiner sucking up to the Nats…what a bunch of clowns…censorship rules at the sub.. heh !
[DPF: Those interested can see the post at the bottom of front page of thorndonbubble.org. How silly]
Your facts are questionable, your premis is wrong and until the cancer that is Vettori is removed the NZ team will continue to flounder.”
Uh… why?
If we are to remove Vettori from the team, we may as well denote ourselves to ICC associate status, and start playing 3-day games against kenya, canada and ireland.
starboard, I’m concerned about your masochistic tendency to keep visiting the stranded. It reminds me of Blazing Saddles where Bart (the black guy) asks the KKK guys ‘where are all the white women at?”
he he he, I just realised I’ve compared the stranded to the KKK. Now who can I compare Trev Alert to?
I’d compare the greens blog to the Pol Pot, but it lacks irony.
heh heh ! I know but I cant help myself..reading their shite..the schreeking…the screaming..the venom..the pure hatred of the Nats…I cant poke the borax anymore .. they banned me but it was fun while it lasted…and as for that retard Iprent…
..if it goes against what they want to hear they wipe ya..same as red blert…at least here you can pretty much say your piece steveo…
Well I think it’s reasonable to expect a high-ish standard from article-posters, as they should simply be aware of what’s acceptable at the site they post on. You’re talking more about commenters on sites. Would like to know what the post said rather than it just being mysteriously removed though, maybe Irish should’ve put a red cross and stopped comments instead.
I agree with RightNow though, I removed The Standard from my RSS a couple of months ago, it’s pretty painful. Danyl, Lew and DPF can read it for me.
Check out the guy on the right. Yup, Colin Espiner brimming with excitement as his Johnny wins on election night. This is what is left of the myth of objective journalism – a political editor for a major daily reveling in the victory of a man who his supposedly impartial political coverage helped bring to power.
Some fret that the demise of newspapers and the rise of grassroots, Internet-based media will mean that political commentary will be amateur, sensationalist, biased, and partisan. I ask how that’s any different from what we have today.
Italian schools told to remove crucifixes
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Italian schools should remove crucifixes from classrooms, sparking uproar in Italy, where such icons are embedded in the national psyche.
“This is an abhorrent ruling,” said Rocco Buttiglione, a former culture minister who helped write papal encyclicals.
“It must be rejected with firmness. Italy has its culture, its traditions and its history. Those who come among us must understand and accept this culture and this history,” he said.
The court ruling, which Italy said it would appeal, said crucifixes on school walls, a common sight that is part of every Italian’s life, could disturb children who were not Christians.
Isn’t it great having an international body dictating the regular affairs of state of a sovereign nation. So I wonder if they’ll ban veils, niqabs, hijabs, turbans, Stars of David as well?
It does seem strange that devices used for torture and death are displayed so much. Some of them even included a model of a torturee nailed up and suffering. Isn’t that gross?
.. we need a swift mobilisation not seen since the second world war
For those concerned about global warming, all eyes are on December’s UN climate change conference in Copenhagen.
The stakes could not be higher.
Almost every new report shows that the climate is changing even faster than the most dire projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their 2007 report.
Yet from my vantage point, internationally negotiated climate agreements are fast becoming obsolete for two reasons.
First, since no government wants to concede too much compared with other governments ..
.. the negotiated goals for cutting carbon emissions will almost certainly be minimalist ..
.. not remotely approaching the bold cuts that are needed.
And second, since it takes years to negotiate and ratify these agreements, we may simply run out of time.
This is not to say that we should not participate in the negotiations .. and work hard to get the best possible result.
But we should not rely on these agreements to save civilisation.
Saving civilisation is going to require an enormous effort to cut carbon emissions.
The good news is that we can do this with current technologies, which I detail in my book, Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.
Plan B aims to stabilise climate, stabilise population, eradicate poverty, and restore the economy’s natural support systems.
It prescribes a worldwide cut in net carbon emissions of 80% by 2020 ..
.. thus keeping atmospheric CO2 concentrations from exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm).. in an attempt to hold temperature rise to a minimum.
The eventual plan would be to return concentrations to 350 ppm, as agreed by the top US climate scientist at Nasa, James Hansen, and Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC.
In setting this goal we did not ask what would be politically popular ..
.. but rather what it would take to have a decent shot at saving the Greenland ice sheet ..
.. and at least the larger glaciers in the mountains of Asia.
By default, this is a question of food security for us all..”
Good to see Al Bore getting shit. Seems he appeared on the ABC morning show, ABC are Climate Change worshipers, Al was asked why he was still pigging out on burgers when 18% of gas emissions come from the production of meat. Poor Al look like a possum caught in the headlights, good to see the fat bastard squirming in his seat.
But we should not rely on these agreements to save civilisation.
Saving civilisation is going to require an enormous effort to cut carbon emissions.
What utter crap. Carbon is a cornerstone of life. I emit carbon with every breath I take. Carbon emissions do not lead to a change in climate, but changes in climate lead to changes in carbon emissions.
No, if civilisation needs saving, it’s from the nutters who write this nonsense, and from those who waste electrons by repeating it.
Magpie burgers are a healthy low fat alternative to beef burgers (if prepared properly) and as the Magpie is a persistant pest eating them is good for the ecosystem.
“It prescribes a worldwide cut in net carbon emissions of 80% by 2020″, fucking idiots can prescribe all they like, 80% by 2020, yeah sure, not if I have my way. Fuck Phil we have so little time left, you should out on the town smoking up a storm. Where do you find this shit ?
Isn’t it great having an international body dictating the regular affairs of state of a sovereign nation. So I wonder if they’ll ban veils, niqabs, hijabs, turbans, Stars of David as well?
Interesting article, had no idea they did things that way in Italy. I think that body would ban those things you mentioned if they were displayed in schools in the same manner as the crucifix, but since they’re mostly matters of individual religious expression (unlike the crucifix in this case, which seems to be ‘institutional’(?) expression), it seems less likely they would ban individuals from wearing/displaying them. Not knowing much about the area and all though. It doesnt mention it but i presume those were public schools too.
“Plan B aims to stabilise climate, stabilise population, eradicate poverty, and restore the economy’s natural support systems.
It prescribes a worldwide cut in net carbon emissions of 80% by 2020″
LMAO!
A wolf never goes hungry for long Phillu, what Plan B would really do is put billions of backs up against the wall as the logistical structure that allows humanity to thrive breaks down.
It appears that most anthropogenic climate change deniers do so not because of any genuine desire for scientific exellence, but because they are concerned about the effect on their wallets.
Of course this is a seriously misguided motivation. It’s a bit like not wanting to put oil in your car engine and not expecting it to expire at some stage in the future.
And those who say the cure will kill the patient need to get real.
I won’t hold my breath. Probably more chance that Fox News will one day exhibit a ‘fair and balanced’ worldview.
Heres the link to Bobs comment (re: the dribbling fool Gore) Magpie.
I see he isn’t a veggie like you (his acolyte) and he has made a $1000,000,000 out of shafting dickheads about climate change pseudo-science so he is not a welfare recipient either (like you) food for thought eh——-meh—– (but no triple cheeseburgers—-eh).
It appears that most anthropogenic climate change deniers do so not because of any genuine desire for scientific excellence, but because they are concerned about the effect on their wallets.
It might be convenient for your internal guidance system Luc, but on what evidence do you base that claim. The scientific fraud perpetrated by the IPCC is probably the worst scam in the history of mankind. Doctored stats, cherry-picked datasets, absence of peer review, blocking/ridicule of contra-viewpoints.
And why? To implement a global welfare scheme that will trap poor nations in dependence on the providence of the UN – in reality trap them in the grip of the strongest, most wealthy contributors.
No this isn’t about my wallet. It’s about the insatiable desire that some have for power. Not satisfied with sovereign national power they want to create another layer above and like a cheap magician, the myth of climate change is being used to take our collective eyes off the real maneuvering.
Re the discussion up-thread about liberalism and the effect on policing in NZ, I’m reading a book right now which details this topic in depth among others, in a series of essays.
It is called Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass (2001) ISBN 1566633826, By Theodore Dalrymple, a British psychiatrist who worked in a Birmingham hospital and prison for a decade (also Zimbabwe, Tanzania, South Africa and Kiribati and other places). I highly recommend it (and his other works) as this book gives a succinct and erudite insight with examples and factual arguments into why society has disintegrated so alarmingly, mostly based on his time observing patients and prisoners in Birmingham. One essay relates to Wellington on a visit he made a few years back, and more generally an analysis of NZ culture and criminality.
bruv – Yeah, that one surprised me a lot, and is the only one I really disagreed with them on. A lot of them really, REALLY believe in psychics, and others were of the attitude, even if it’s crap, what harm does it do? None of them really cared too much about the conflict of interest which got me to pose the question in the first place.
It appears that most anthropogenic climate change deniers do so not because of any genuine desire for scientific exellence, but because they are concerned about the effect on their wallets.
Geez Pete, perhaps these people are smart enough to have risen to become captains of industry, while use the same brains to see through the climate change myth.
And if you’re suggesting that their views are biased because of their affiliations, does that also apply to the IPCC’s ‘scientists’ who depend on their IPCC incomes to put food on the table at home?
All scientists should have some skepticism, it is a part of their job.
Non-scientists who label themselves climate change skeptics are mostly lackeys (not captains of industry) hired to muddy the water, to create confusion and doubt and to stir up the gullible. It has become a standard tactic (“intelligent” design is another prime example).
Scientists don’t depend on IPCC incomes. They would seek and get funding for whatever research they are doing, if it wasn’t climate change they would be researching something else. That’s what scientists do. If it was proven tomorrow that we are doomed regardless and there is nothing we can do about it they would adjust their focus on what is deemed useful research until doomsday.
Scientists don’t label themselves climate change supporters, they just keep doing the real science and modify their views as each bit of new evidence comes up.
MIKE:..”These people were doing what they were doing because the NZPolice weren’t doing their job?
I think we need to change both the law and the culture within the police and crown Law towards self defence by citizens.
This is an issue of competency, as part of the reason for the surveillance bill right now, is the lack of competency of the NZPolice in that area of operations.”
My Response:…..I think it likely that the ODT is using inflammatory language(Vigilante}. The Community Group was probably set up by the Community Constable at Martinborough. I doubt there would be more than two constables stationed there and they have to sleep.
I strongly agree with your second point…I think most of the Martinborough Community Group would have resigned their positions and no replacements would have been forthcoming following this incident. Pity such groups are an excellent deterrent to crime.
Final point partly right. The bill is aimed at consolidating the various existing powers of officials under one folder. The Police generally are given the enforcement powers other agencies have. As the powers are scattered at present through various different Acts individual Police are largely un-aware of what exactly their power is under say the Fisheries Act or even Dog Control Act hence they are often reluctant to act except when accompanied by the appropriate specialist Inspector, who often is not available. The consolidation should help.
All scientists should have some skepticism, it is a part of their job.
Non-scientists who label themselves climate change skeptics are mostly lackeys (not captains of industry) hired to muddy the water, to create confusion and doubt and to stir up the gullible. It has become a standard tactic (”intelligent” design is another prime example).
Scientists don’t depend on IPCC incomes. They would seek and get funding for whatever research they are doing, if it wasn’t climate change they would be researching something else. That’s what scientists do. If it was proven tomorrow that we are doomed regardless and there is nothing we can do about it they would adjust their focus on what is deemed useful research until doomsday.
Scientists don’t label themselves climate change supporters, they just keep doing the real science and modify their views as each bit of new evidence comes up.
So Pete, have you got any science for us? Or just more slurs. What was Alinsky’s philosophy again? Denigrate and ridicule right.
..trougher of the year under the guise of ” helping maori “…I wonder if he high-fived Rodney as they past in the terminal…
Just by way of example Te Reo Marama was established to combat Maori Smoking yet somehow Shane Kawenata Bradbrook saw fit to expend some $77,000 on international travel in the space of just three years. These figures are obtained from the OIA documents. Not only that over the past nine years under Labour Shane Kawenata Bradbrook has visited Chicago, USA in June 2000, Helsinki, Finland in August 2003, Hawaii, USA in November 2005, New York in April 2006, Washington DC in July 2006, Cairns, Australia in November 2006, Bangkok, Thailand in July 2007, Hawai again in Oct 2007, Broome, Australia in Nov 2007, Hawaii again!!! in May 2008, and Melbourne and Tuvalu in the same month, Durban South Africa in Nov 2008, Mumbai, India in March 2009, Perth, Australia in May 2009 and finally Darwin just recently in October 2009.
I’m beginning to suspect Pete, that you are another of these climate change advocates that doesn’t actually know what piece of information it is that convinces them of the certainty of climate change. You just agree with people because you like the look of them.
Name the scientist and the study that provides the data that has convinced you.
Here’s some science: The atmosphere is cooling. The oceans are cooling.
Temperature changes cause changes in levels of atmospheric Co2, not the other way around.
Polar bear populations are flourishing, not dwindling. The myth that they were all dying was based on discovery of 4 polar bears that had died after a nasty storm.
IPPC cherry-picked tree-ring dataset to support the theory of warming, discarding the vast majority that didn’t provide the outcome they wanted.
IPCC deliberately chooses starting points for statistical analysis that show the trend they’re wanting. Hurricanes are a good example. IPCC data starting from 1970 shows an increase. The actual data from 1940 shows a marked decrease.
Their Artic sea ice summer low point a few years ago was widely published, but not that fact that 6 months later the Antarctic summer sea ice was at its highest recorded level. For the last few years Artic sea ice has been expanding (Nasa images).
IPCC deliberately changed historical models to remove a well accepted period called the Medieval Warming Period because it’s existence cast doubt on other inputs they considered important for their climate ‘theorytail’
Following on, does all this matter? Yes it should, because we’ve been lied to, and passionate people are embarking on various courses of action based on lies. The IPCC has an agenda that *should* make any thinking person shudder in disbelief. The scientific fraud for which they’re responsible for is doing incalculable damage because other scientists (the honest majority) are basing their research on incorrect/dishonest data.
And don’t start me on pollution. Pollution levels are inversely proportional to national wealth. No form of UN sanctioned quasi-government dispensing globally requisitioned welfare to poor nations will lift those nations out of poverty – quite the opposite. No, that kind of ‘welfare’ would simply entrench existing third-world conditions and perpetuate the squalor and pollution that we all would see fixed. Those nations need sustainable economic growth, not welfare.
I’m not a climate change advocate. I’m not sure about it. Of course I know the climate keeps changing, and I know there is some human influence, and I know that the vast majority of climate scientists think there could be a problem, so yes, I do put more weight on what nearly all climate scientists and science organisations think is supported by sufficient facts.
And I don’t put as much weight on what Lord Monckton the journalist says, especially when he is proven by Fox to have lied and he chooses to talk to unscientific special interest groups.
Last week I countered the well worn hockey stick criticism. I don’t take single quotes at face value, I try and double check, it isn’t difficult to do that on the ‘net.
There is an ongoing debate about the details of the temperature record and the means of its reconstruction, centered on the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998), “hockey stick” graph. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick [3] claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998) and that the MBH method when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component. In turn, Michael E. Mann (supported by Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit) has disputed the claims made by McIntyre and McKitrick . The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report says that M&M may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Ammann (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small.
Just went to pick up my Melbourne Cup winnings at two TAB branches in Dunedin and was unable to collect from either as they have run out of cash.
How can this possibly be? They must have been able to calculate last night how much they would expect to be paying out today.
The second branch I tried was the main branch for the city and they were unable to give me $800 as that would “leave us with nothing for the rest of the afternoon”. What kind of tinpot business are they running?
They certainly didn’t have any trouble collecting people’s stakes yesterday. But paying out seems to be somewhat difficult?
Auckland bus drivers reject latest pay offer, despite it being recommended by their union
Is anyone really surprised though? The blame for this whole fiasco can be laid at the door of one Mike Lee, who if he hadn’t threatened NZ Bus the drivers wouldn’t have raised their expectations beyond what is reasonable in the current financial climate. Like i said elsewhere, have they learnt nothing from the actions of freezing workers in the last two decades?
“I’m not a climate change advocate. I’m not sure about it. Of course I know the climate keeps changing, and I know there is some human influence, and I know that the vast majority of climate scientists think there could be a problem, so yes, I do put more weight on what nearly all climate scientists and science organisations think is supported by sufficient facts.”
Despite agreeing with very little you have to say I know you are not stupid, therefore, I am amazed at that comment of yours. I expect the mindless chardonnay socialists to swallow all that climate change bullshit but I would have thought a bloke of your intelligence would at least want to have a look at the facts before throwing in your lot with one side or the other.
It is a fact that there is NO proof that climate change is caused by man, even Toad and Frog will have to admit as much, the whole climate change con has been hijacked by the hard left as a trojan horse for their political agenda of one world government and income redistribution.
Did you really think that the TAB would keep all that money laying about given the high number of Labour voters and low life scum who just about live in the TAB?
Republicans thrashing incumbent Dems in Virginia and New Jersey.
Pete………Monckton offered to debate climate change on Fox with Al Gore. Guess who declined. Gore won’t debate with anyone yet by rights should be the most experienced debater available. Indicates to me he hasn’t the courage nor the conviction.
I reckon it’s great the Auckland bus drivers are striking.
It’s time for workers to stick it to the managers, who seem to receive over the top pay rises, even in a recession.
Just take a look at the Niwa head, getting a 50 grand pay rise to 550 k per year. Just crazy.
Management get bonuses by restricting the salary of lower level employees. This has just got out of hand, so it’s great to see some employees striking back.
Not sure the particulars with the bus drivers, but I understand they get about $15 / hour? Seems too low to me anyway.
Time that the people of Auckland fought back against these low life union scum.
Tell the bus drivers to go and get fucked, they need somebody to arrange an emergency car pool system, anybody who wants or needs a ride into town should wait at bus stops and pick up rides from other good natured Aucks who want to see the union low life crushed.
Brian Smaller (1991) Vote: 0 0 Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Mike, put it this way – would you consider extendable batons defensive if they were being carried by a bunch of gang members?
Pete when is your head tosspot going to front up and argue the point? What a ball less wonder Bore is, the man is full of hot air and platitudes. Lord Monckton would kick his fat hairy arse but of course old Al knows this. I would of thought that if Lord Monckton was a liar Bore would be in like a robbers dog to sort him out. I know who the real liar is and he is covered in chicken shit for all to see.
But other than that the fact CO2 has been as much as 7000ppm during the Cambrian (Thats the age of fishes Pete, so much for Ocean acidification), having been at 7000ppm and temperature being about 22 deg C (its about 14.5 today), both co2 and temp have dropped, therefore there was no ‘tipping point’ (which is always conveniently in the near future, is the anything in the world that greenies don’t think is near the ‘tipping point’).
Our current temperature trends are still following the pattern of ice ages and interglacials and data produced within the last decade has shown that co2 lags temp by 800 years. At the peak of temp during the interglacials which have been slightly warmer than today, temp and co2 has fallen rapidly, again no tipping point.
In recent times temp has fallen from 1940 to 1980 a period of increasing human output, and has stabilised since the turn of the last decade. During both of these periods human emmissions have been increasing, there are therefore other forcings that outweigh the effect of co2.
And Richard Lindzen is releasing a paper this year that shows with increasing temp and co2 the Earth has been observed to increase the rate of heat irradiance into space. Therefore the ‘greenhouse effect’ has not occurred as expected, rather a balancing increase in the rate of heat loss has been measured to occur.
Also, the supposed greenhouse effect of each additional amount of co2 becomes less and less. So therefore the majority of the greenhouse effect should already be upon us.
If you love bus drivers so much, why don’t you use their services whenever you can and give them a tip comparable to how much you believe they are worth.
“He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.”
In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen “clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.”
Lindzen told the BBC that ExxonMobil was “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US” and that “they have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense.”
Also linked to the Heartland Institute.
Writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that “of all the skeptics, MIT’s Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he’s doing serious research on the subject.”
So of the skeptics society he does actually have some scientific credentials, but he is in a very small minority. He has discarded a number of his arguments as they have been disproven.
Wreck, the problem is the bus system itself is unsustainable given that ARTA has to massively subsidise the system just to keep it functioning. The drivers are on pretty thin ground and as others have said there are plenty of ways that they could be done out of a job.
So instead of lamely claiming they are worth ‘x’ when they plainly aren’t, the drivers should be looking at how they can ensure there is still a job for them because at the moment they are only employed because of the good grace of the tax and rate paying public.
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”
What’s the point in links Phil, anything we put up is not to be believe or will be a load of shit in your eyes and besides why would I bother, you’re the resident link whore, God forbid I should cramp your style. Oh the cows send their love and plenty of white stuff still coming out the back end. Did you notice our pay rise the other day, bet that got up your Melon nose. Like farming is a sunset industry and all, according to the socialist suckholes. As for being “hysterical” I think you may have more to be hysterical about, has Paula been around yet?
1. how many of the 3,146 scientists performed primary research on their own temperature and weather data, and how many relied on IPCC source data for their analysis? My contention is that there’s more fack in a JK Rowling novel than in the IPCC source data.
2. What was the peer-review method? Did the IPCC organise this peer review, of did scientists simply ask like-minded colleagues to review?
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
What is this bullshit and why are you bringing it up on a scientific matter? This is not a popularity contest.
Pete, you’re worried about where funding comes from, questioning motives?
Extract:
Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in [to warmist climate science], and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?
getstaffed, the IPCC doesn’t do data. It reviews and assesses.
The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis.
Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in [to warmist climate science], and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
That is a bit like saying that the cigarette industry puts a fraction of money into trying to disprove the dangers of passive smoking compared to the money governments put into cancer research.
I can’t be arsed finding all the research papers that show it as they are probably decades old but can you tell me which of the follwing you believe to be substanitally incorrect.
Co2 levels in the Cambrian period reached ~7000ppm
Temperatures in the Camrian period reached ~22 deg C
We have had several ice ages cycles in which the temperature cycled between 5 and 15 deg C
The CO2 levels followed the temp during the glacial cycles with a lag of ~800-1000 years
The average surface temp of the Earth cooled from ~1940 to ~1980
The average surface temp stopped increasing ~2000
The human output of CO2 and greenhouse gases increased from 1940-2009
As far as I am aware Richard Lindzens paper on irradiance will be published this month.
Careful getstaffed you are treading dangerous ground. Questioning climate change is heresy and Pete and his mates will be around to have a little bonfire ( after they pay for the credits of course ), with you being the center piece.
As you can see from your karma, Pete, nothing will convince those who are hard wired to believe anything inconvenient to their way of life or beliefs, least of all informed debates (why should Al Gore give Monckton a platform? He’s too smart for that) and conclusions drawn from observed data using the scientific method. This method, by the way, that pervades virtually everything they do (including sex, at times).
For what it’s worth, here is as good an explanation I can give for accepting the argument of anthropological global warming without doing my own climate science degree and years of observations:
Global Climate Change and Scientific Proof
The global warming skeptics advance arguments against the conclusions of the IPCC. They argue that anthropogenic global warming has not been “proven”.
But there is no such thing as scientific proof. There are merely falsifiable theories. The ‘proof’ of a positive theory is simply the result of disproving all alternative theories.
We observe that the earth is getting warmer (there may be some controversy over correctness of methods to determine that, but even the skeptics seem to agree with that observation). Scientist offer plausible explanations. Some suggest it is caused by non-anthropogenic factors such as natural solar cycle increasing solar radiation, volcanos belching green-house gases, the tilt of the earth’s axis, reduced cloud cover due to natural factors. Some suggest it is caused by green-house gases resulting from burning of fossil fuels and the loss of forests and other CO2 sinks due to human activity.
One by one, scientists uncover evidence that falsifies the proposed explanations. They succeed in falsifying all theories but one: the increase in greenhouse gases, principally CO2, due to human activity.
Now, maybe the conclusion is wrong because there is some other, as yet unproposed theory, to explain the increase in global temperature. That is always a possibility in ANY scientific theory and that is why science can never prove anything. But until someone proposes another theory, or is able to show that the evidence which destroys an alternative theory is wrong, we are left with the anthropogenic model. And that is as close to ‘proof’ as anyone can get.
QED
For example, evolution is proved by the observed data, as is global warming over the long term (regardless of getstaffed’s presentation of a short term cooling that actually fits within the theory). The explanation, the theory, of evolution is natural selection, which has yet to be disproved hence its widespread acceptance: similarly for global warming (see above)
I must admit though, it’s valuable to be challenged so vociferously and “getmotivated” to study this again.
Naturally, though we tend to look at information that confirms our pre-existing view anyway, and this is true of all of us. While a blind “argument from authority” can be fallacious, I think the sheer weight of the consensus of the relevant scientific community overrides this possibility.
Seems that the result is all about Obama and the people’s dissatisfaction with him.
In the last few decades Virginia has always voted in the opposite party to the incumbent so this result is expected.
Exit polls showed that the majority are still happy with Obama.
McDonell (R) was a respected candidate.
Deed (D) was regarded as a weak candidate who didn’t run a very good campaign.
I do not see why such a heated debate is taking place.
Global Warming is nonsense; large corporate interests will pay opinion makers to ensure everyone changes their mind and realises global warming is nonsense; Governments’ will abandon all their idiotic policies which harm business.
This will happen because large corporate interests are rich and Greenies/scientists/loons are poor
Welcome to how planet Earth has operated for thousands of years.
You chaps can say and do whatever you like but inevitably capitalist multinationals will win because they always do and you will have to lump it and the right people will continue to earn vast profits and life will go on as it should.
They do ‘do’ data. It’s just you and I only get to see the published reports. As do universities the world over who uses this material as course content. The IPCC’s ‘Expert Review’ is managed in-house, presumably by hand-picked frendlies.
If you think the IPCC are playing with straight dice when the volume of evidence against much of their published material is mounting, then I wish you well as the climate change ‘theorytail’ unwinds.
But the point remains that you lefty chappies are fighting a battle you have already lost; the reason you have lost is the interests you are fighting make too much money for too many people for them to be cast aside in favour of you.
I understand your pain, but do not share it. The GOP victories in the NJ and Va governor races were definite slaps at Obama, but the District 23 outcome, if the results hold, indicate that upstate New Yorkers do not like external meddling in their affairs or simply are not as conservative as the meddlers. Even if the campaign for governorship was dominated by local anti-corruption issues, the NJ loss was particularly bad for Obama because that state traditionally tends to go Dem, Obama won the state by 18 percent last year and had invested much political capital on Corzine. The VA loss is not as bad, since outside of the DC suburbs it tends to be rural-conservative, and with some racial voting patterns (which helped explain why Obama “only” won by 6 points there). Beyond the District 23 special election, there were a a dozen or so mayoralties at stake and so far they have gone mostly Democratic. Ballot initiatives on same-sex marriage and medical marijuana are also trending left.
So the message after one year partially follows the tradition of turning against the president on broad scope issues while favoring local concerns over national ones in most races. The repudiation of Obama is only partial, not complete. Given that overall turnout was low, including in all of the high profile elections (lower turnouts tend to favor Republicans), that would indicate that many voters are adopting a wait and see policy believing that one year is too short a timeframe in which to judge the president. But he and the Democratic congressional caucus have certainly been put on notice that their coattails are a double-edged sword, and hence they need to proceed with caution when formulating their agendas in the run-up to next November’s far more important mid-term elections (where all of the House and several senate seats will be up for grabs).
I (Johnboy.sheep.Walton) being in almost sound mind and slightly fucked body hereby duly authorise all who sail in the good ship KB (under the inspired command of Admiral Farrar) to use the phrase.
‘Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle
Phil the magpie said.’
and all variations of such phrase including additions such as———eh? or ———-meh? etc etc
The sole purpose of the use of this phrase shall be to mightly piss off PhilU (aka ‘Magpie’ ‘Heckle’ ‘Jeckle’ ‘Bludger’ and other alias’s.) as often as possible in an endeavour to reduce the enormity/boredom of his comments.
Climate change is a religion, confirmed in a UK court case.
In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.
“Why should Al Bore give Monckton a platform? hes to smart for that” Oh fucking please Luc, that snake oil salesman, Bore, would be mince meat, something Al likes sinking his fat chops into. Bore would have to be one of the all time leading hypocrites. House that uses 20 times the power of an average home, private jet aircraft pumping out tons of co2 and a collection of dribbling lefties as thick as pigshit hanging of his every utterance. No Luc the man is coward and a bullshit artist. Not that it really matters, this shit is history, Mac Daddy has just had a good arse kicking and the loony left will be shit scared to sign on the dotted line now, it’s all over Luc. Better find another cause to get your nickers into a twist.
Borker – I note the UK decision was in respect of a Greenie who refused to travel by plane etc.
I wonder if a consumer who refuses to pay carbon tax or ETS-style charges would be afforded the same protection of the courts?
That would be only fair of course, but I doubt that will happen… meaning adherents of the Climate Change™ religion will have the support of law while non-adherents will not.
All public transportation systems around the world are subsidised. Fare prices bear no relation to the cost of providing the service.
If you wanted the public transportation to be funded solely from fare revenue, then there would be no public transport system in auckland.
Given that Aucklanders have decided to fund public transport, they must treat the employees with respect and pay them a wage on which they can support their families in the most expensive city in the country.
I watched TV One’s item about the bus drivers stop work meeting today and the drivers “refusal” of the 11.5% pay offer.
It seems that near enough to half of the drivers were happy to accept the offer, indeed, many of those interviewed as the came out of the meeting said as much.
Apparently, the union thugs hijacked the meeting to ensure that the workers turned the offer down.
The greenhouse effect is not a theory that is being challenged, it is accepted by all as the phenomenen that gives the Earth its current temperature. What is disputed is a prediction about the future, it’s not really even about CO2, but imagined ‘forcings’.
It is the same as feeding a 100kg man 1,000 potatoes and predicting he will then weigh 200kg. You don’t need to disprove the theory of metabolism to disagree with the prediction of what his weight will be.
The fact that none, and I do mean NONE, of the computer models predicted the global cooling of the last 10 years shows just how pathetic these models are at ‘predicting’ climate change.
I mean if the 6 O’clock news can’t predict the weather even half the time twenty four hours hence, why would we trust computer models which predict the next 100 years, when ALL of them got the last ten years totally wrong?
AGW is a religion, pure and simple.
The second greatest pseudo scientific ‘theory’ foisted upon a gullible Mankind in all recorded history.
This today from HNZ.
Essential facts.
The taxpayer has been well and truly fleeced by HNZ and its tenants. Housing repairs last year rose by 37 million dollars to 217 million dollars and rates rose 11 million to 109 million.
Operation income i.e. rents were 887 million.
Quote:
Most of Housing NZ’s revenue – [b]54 per cent – comes from income-related rent subsidies, 39 per cent comes from tenants
So the tax payer spends a fair bit housing his/her other family. Paying for the entitlements of his/her other family when it comes to funding council activities. Activities that taken for granted by the tenants. Tenants who have a vote as of right but are not required in any way to fund local body activities.
N.B. in many area’s HNZ also pays in its rates bill for supplies such as water, rubbish collections and so on.
If Blenglish is going to change the rules around landlords and deductibility from incomes for rental properties then he needs to talk to his Ministers about these public rorts of the system.
Kinda interesting that a lot of the noise about various rorts involving parliamentarians (which need fixing, no question) is generated from the very people who are up to their necks in the rort that is HNZ, Social Welfare and taxpayers providing them a privilege.
It is pleasing to note that rents are rising at last and this today;
Rental activity was also strong, with the average weekly rent achieved by Barfoot & Thompson’s property management division lifting over $400 for the first time to $403, a whopping 4.9 percent increase on the levels of just a month earlier.
“This is the first time average weekly rents have climbed above the $400 mark, and the increase in average weekly rents over those for the previous month was $19, or 4.9 percent,” Thompson said.
Now I would suggest that this is just the start of at least two years of rising rents. Shortage of housing will ensure it happens. If Blenglish wants to attack those that have rental housing and have subsidized others living spaces for a number of years now then he better be prepared to either buy a lot of houses at ever increasing prices, spend more on the housing subsidy or stop NZ’s population from growing. interference in a market place always creates distortion.
Billy, you misrepresent the finding. The green philosophy adopted by the plaintiff is the belief: the science is climate change.
sideshow, personal or institutional failings do not invalidate the science. And you should calm down. I have nothing in a twist over moves to address climate change; rather it is the deniers wo seem to find it necessary to resort to ad hominem rants.
Sonny, all scientific theories are under constant challenge. But anthropogenic global warming is still the consensus findings of the specialists. I wonder if you would argue as much with your heart surgeon. Also, it’s true climate is chaotic, but patterns over huge time spans do exist and these patterns tell us that there is something different afoot this time.
Kris, in my opinion the greatest psuedo science foisted upon man is religion, including “miracles” and creationism.
You may find this difficult to believe, but climate science is not conducted within the pages of newspapers, or on the websites of the world’s more opinionated bloggers. But for those without ready access to the ongoing debate among scientists, one could be forgiven for thinking that it is.
Climate predictions rely on models of the Earth’s atmosphere, and models are, owing to the complexity of the natural world and the limited computational power at our disposal, idealised representations of reality. However, simplified though they can sometimes be, climate models are subject to continuous development and refinement as we learn more about the Earth system. Uncertainties in the predictions made with the aid of models are thereby reduced.
Contrary to the claims of anthropogenic climate change sceptics and outright deniers, the science of global warming is settled. What continues to be debated are the finer details of the processes involved and their complex interactions. These are of course crucial, and there is much discussion within the Earth science community about uncertainties in climate models, and the impact these have on predictions which will have huge social and economic ramifications.
In a recent issue of the American Geophysical Union’s house journal Eos, Columbia University researcher Lisa Goddard and others discuss among other things the issue of uncertainty, and the difficulty in making predictions with climate models.
“Although scientific effort never will eliminate uncertainty, it can better estimate uncertainty. This is especially true at the time scales of seasons to decades, which are the most actionable time scales. These are the time scales at which incremental adaptation can evolve with the help of appropriate state-of-the-art climate predictions.”
Goddard and her colleagues go on to stress that climate science is inherently probabilistic in nature, and, as such, individual models cannot be used for point-specific climate forecasting. This crucial point must be hammered into the dense skulls of pundits and policymakers who cannot seem to cope with anything other than simple, binary logic. What is needed, say the authors, is for decision makers to learn how to treat information about future climate as a range of possibilities.
And Kris: “The fact that none, and I do mean NONE, of the computer models predicted the global cooling of the last 10 years shows just how pathetic these models are at ‘predicting’ climate change.”
I googled: climate cooling anticipated
and top of the page was
For years, Russians have been predicting global cooling because of an anticipated change in the sun’s output. They do not necessarily contest the validity … http://www.energyendgame.com/Cooling.htm – Similar -
And I have found myself with an open mind on the subject of global warming. It is happening, but what is the cause? Humankind, cyclical weather patterns, or a combination of both?
A JETSTAR plane may have suffered the same malfunction last week that brought down an Air France jet in the Atlantic in June, killing all 228 on board.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority are probing the similarities between both incidents.
At 1.30am on October 29 the pilot of the Jetstar Airbus 330-200 reported an instrument blackout as the jet, carrying 200 passengers, passed through storm clouds between Japan and the Gold Coast.
Investigators are treating the incident as serious and have downloaded information from the jet’s flight data recorders before the jet was released back to the airline. After normal flight was resumed, the crew radioed Jetstar’s Melbourne HQ for advice where it was determined that the plane should fly on to the Gold Coast.
* Qantas probe: Pilots ‘forgot to lower wheels’
* The Punch: Black box – or brown undies?
The aircraft landed five hours later without the passengers knowing what happened.
During the six-second blackout, the automatic pilot malfunctioned and fluctuating readings were transmitted by one of the jet’s three airspeed indicators, a similar situation to what the pilot of the Air France jet is said to have reported in his final radio message before his aircraft broke up and plunged into the ocean.
Jetstar said last night that early indications were the airspeed sensing system suffered a momentary interruption, after which the instruments returned to normal. “The crew remained in full control of the aircraft at all times and responded in accordance with training and procedure,” the airline said.
A spokesperson said the carrier was also liaising closely with Airbus on the issue, adding that a number of parts were replaced during a detailed examination of the jet before it was allowed to resume flying.
The Jetstar and Air France jets were similar models, Airbus 330-200 jetliners.
Until now Jetstar parent Qantas has steadfastly maintained its jets are different to the doomed Air France airliner.
Jetstar aircraft are fitted with different speed sensors to those used on Air France planes and which investigators believe may have iced up and caused the mid-Atlantic disaster.
# huttriverofnz(1) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
And I have found myself with an open mind on the subject of global warming. It is happening, but what is the cause? Humankind, cyclical weather patterns, or a combination of both?
hutt, where have you been hiding? There is enough information and links above for you to do your own research. Try it. You might even like it.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that victims of extraordinary rendition cannot sue Washington for torture suffered overseas, because Congress has not authorized such lawsuits.
This case concerned a Canadian citizen detained in the US and exported to Syria where he was held in humiliating and inhuman confinement and subject to torture for 12 mths. The Canadian government later declared him innocent and awarded him about C10 million dollars. He then sued the US government but a federal court said it can’t find for him because national security interests trump everything else.
Thin about it: it is now officially non-actionable, legally, for the US government to pick you up in US territory, charge you with no crime, torture and/or kill you in a state that allow these practices. You or your family will receive no compensation even if you are proved innocent. The US government has not contested any of the plaintiffs allegations.
Let’s hope the plaintiff appeals and the Supreme Court arrives at a the kind of decision we expect from the land of the free.
Has anyone figured out how to kill manbearpig yet? I know the science is settled on his existence but how do we actually kill him?
And why are the worlds leaders still having a conference on manbearpig if they really believe he is real? Is someone trying to use the hype over manbearpig for another reason?
Contrary to the claims of anthropogenic climate change sceptics and outright deniers, the science of global warming is settled.
Pete, with respect, that’s complete nonsense. The science on which the theory/theories are based is so far from settled that one will find more fact in a JK Rowling novel.
In many cases this science is based on source data that’s been ‘adjusted’, or not-peer reviewed, or plain fabricated (ie the removal of the Medieval Warming Period from IPCC’s released datasets, ice caps are melting when ther are expanding, the ocean is warming when it is, in fact, cooling etc).
In other cases cherry-picked datasets have been adopted in support while the majority of ‘unsupportive’ datasets from the same knowledge domains have been dropped. Google ‘CRU Yamal data set’ for more info.
The adoption of arbitrary start and end dates for trend mapping in support of pre-determined outcomes is rife. The incidence of hurricane occurrence is a great exampled here. IPCC use data from 1970 which shows an increasing trend. Data from 1940, which they chose to withold, reveals a decreasing trend.
No, the science is not settled. It’s it riddled with bullets of truth and scientific sunlight, and the worshipers at the altar of climate change are rightfully worried.
For the record I agree with getstaffed, the science is not settled on AGW, but manbearpig is alive and well in the fearful minds of AGW believers everywhere. The hunt continues, he MUST be killed.
And Kris: “The fact that none, and I do mean NONE, of the computer models predicted the global cooling of the last 10 years shows just how pathetic these models are at ‘predicting’ climate change.”
I googled: climate cooling anticipated and top of the page was
For years, Russians have been predicting global cooling because of an anticipated change in the sun’s output. They do not necessarily contest the validity … http://www.energyendgame.com/Cooling.htm – Similar -
And the rest of the quote:
Global cooling gains some credibility – February 8, 2008
“For years, Russians have been predicting global cooling because of an anticipated change in the sun’s output. They do not necessarily contest the validity of global warming from greenhouse gases, but they point out that if the sun gets “cooler” everything else does not matter.”
Interesting that this info comes out in 2008 when we’ve already had about 10 years of cooling. But notice, too, that they “do not necessarily contest the validity of global warming from greenhouse gases”. Sounds like a bob each way if you ask me.
The fact that those that believe AGW is a psuedo scientific contrivance have also stated that reducing sun spot activity is in fact the primary driver for climate cooling reveals that this is basic common sense. Heck, even I predict climate change in accordance with sun spot activity – whoopdy do.
ALL of the computer models the IPCC used predicted uncontrolled AGW. The fact that for the last 10 years we’ve had global cooling has frustrated their religious aims no end – of course now they call it ‘Climate Change’, not ‘Global Warming’.
It’s a religion, Luc, and you’ve got a lot more spadework to do to overcome the avalanche of evidence against AGW.
Good luck with that.
Just another amoral commie creep posing as a journalist.
Rodney Hide, another swaggering fool politician opening his mouth without engaging his brain.
Look for ACT to hit true minority status after this gaffe. I wonder if Rodders is in any way related to Prince Philip?
It’ll blow over. On the subject of fulsome pollies though, anyone else hear Tim Shadbolt admit he was trying to roll his deputy because he was jealous of him?
The point with global cooling, Kris, is that it gives us a window to actually put in place changes in the way we do things in the long term interests of the planet. Everywhere we go on the internet, scientific magazines etc there is no serious rebuttal of global warming.
And the smart money is on it being in large part due to human activity. Now you stick to your risible quotations out of a scientifically risible work of art – literature – by all means, but I swing in behind the precautionary principle when such stakes are involved and my chioldren and grandchildren are depending on us adults to do the right thing.
Swanning around on a flying carpet of speech marks just marks you as an enemy of mankind, basically. Al Qaeda ain’t got nothing on you and your mates above.
It makes me wish I had taken psychology at uni so I had more insight into what drives such self-endangering behaviour. Maybe you secretly wish for Armageddon. You should be careful what you wish becuse according to your nonsense god gave us life and
Gee you talk a lot of crap, Luc.
You and Gore are two peas in the same pod – so I shouldn’t be surprised.
And if you’re really concerned about the (eternal) wellbeing of your children and grandchildren, then I have some reference materials you could give them. As you already have all the answers, though, I guess it unlikely you’ll be taking up my offer. Your loss, and sadly, theirs as well.
Do you ever get sick of shouting into an echo chamber?
It’s interesting that most of the things you accuse me of are in fact attributes that you possess. Attributes that you portray to others that take the trouble to read your dots and dashes. As I’ve said before; I’m surprised that DPF even gives you the oxygen to breath in this blog. I know I wouldn’t.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:48 am
List Members, 52 of them in this current Parliament, are there to provide Party percentages.
So why not just stick with the locally representative Electorate Members and apply to them the percentages that the Party Vote [and so proportional List Members] otherwise provide.
It would work this way . . .
• The Vegetable Party gets 5 Electorate Members but 30% Party Vote. Don’t add another [122 x 30% = 36.6 - 5 =] 31.6 Vegie List Members to the 5 Electorate Vegetables.
• Just give these five Vegie Electorate Members a 6% vote each.
• The Fruit Party gets 11 Electorate Members and 45% of the Party Vote.
Don’t calculate [122 x 45 = 54.9 - 11 =] 43.9 List Members, nor round Vegie’s 31.6 up to 32, and Fruit’s 43.9 up to 44 and be 2 List Members out already.
• Just give each of those original eleven Fruit Electorate Members a 4.09090*% vote.
Four point zero nine zero nine repeating percent vote each? – bloody hell, how complicated. Not really, that’s what you have a computer for, or a competent intermediate [Year 7-8] school kid with a calculator.
Of course the only time you’d have to use anything other than a Party vote, would be in the case of a conscience vote, which in all conscience should be done away with any way! But if you have to keep it, use the computer [probably could be programmed by the earlier-mentioned school kid]
There are seven political parties represented in the current 49th Parliament by 122 members. I am unclear as to whether one, the Speaker, may always vote. But 122 votes or 121, by percentage, it amounts to 0.819672131148% or 0.826446280992% per Member of Parliament. So that’s the current simple system in percentages.
What I suggest is no more complex, but does away with the List Members. In fact you can also do away with nearly all the Electorate Members too – for the current seven party Parliament you could run it with seven people, in theory. Their votes would just amount to different percentages to represent the Election Day Party Vote. A Party Leader would represent parties that poll over the 5% thresh-hold but don’t gain an Electorate seat.
IT”S THE LIST MEMBERS WHO APPARENTLY PISS PEOPLE OFF [according to polls] SO GET RID OF THEM.
The above theory is outlined on http://www.thelastshower.blogspot.com/
If you look at this please use the LINK BACK [top left] to return to kiwiblog.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Good stuff: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/80658/town-039vigilantes039-have-assault-charges-dropped
Two Martinborough men accused of attacking teens as part of a vigilante patrol group have had charges against them withdrawn by police.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:18 am
cue:..simpsons vigilante-episode..
(these things always end in tears..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 8:21 am
http://www.cricinfo.com/pakvnz2009/engine/current/match/426720.html
For fucks sake.
We may as well play Daniel Vettori and 10 cardboard cutouts, the man is a legend, 34 off 10 in a high scoring game, and almost highest scorer as well.
But the rest of the monekys..
November 4th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Spent a couple of hours studying the field and did my dough but the SO ‘liked’ Shocking so on the way home she puts a lazy tenner on the nose.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Grant Michael McKenna (713) Vote: 0 0 Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Good stuff: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/80658/town-039vigilantes039-have-assault-charges-dropped
Two Martinborough men accused of attacking teens as part of a vigilante patrol group have had charges against them withdrawn by police.
The truly good news of this story is the assault charges were dropped on condition they plead guilty to the possession of offensive weapons, ie police style extendable batons. We cannot have armed morons roaming the streets – there are enough armed brown brothers already roaming the streets and the police have enough work dealing with them, without also having to deal with the self appointed self righteous nutbars.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Yes when you get a lot of brain damaged yokel types with batons (or pitchforks, following the lead of their ancestors) engaging in vigilante behaviour it is a worrying sign.
Shame on the Police; this will be a classic case of the local PC Plod not wanting to be blackballed from the local pub so he neglects his duty to enforce the law to be ‘Mr Popular’.
Just pathetic!
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
November 4th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Levi-Strauss is dead.
He almost made it to 101 years old.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:10 am
So borker – what do you suggest people do when the Police can’t or won’t protect their community? Stand by and do nothing and let crims and vandals destroy their property?
November 4th, 2009 at 9:11 am
These people were doing what they were doing because the NZPolice weren’t doing their job?
I think we need to change both the law and the culture within the police and crown Law towards self defence by citizens.
This is an issue of competency, as part of the reason for the surveillance bill right now, is the lack of competency of the NZPolice in that area of operations.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:12 am
How is it defensive?
November 4th, 2009 at 9:14 am
You can parry attacks with it. And a good offence is the best defence.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Ryan
Common sense mate common sense.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Wouldn’t that make a shotgun even more defensive than a baton?
November 4th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Offensive, defensive, front with a $7.95 jacksaw and watch em run.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:39 am
But New Zealand needs to keep on ramming home the point that Japanese tariffs on NZ dairy products (25-245 per cent), meat (50 per cent) and Kiwifruit (6.4 per cent) damage NZ companies’ profitability.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10607109&pnum=0
*choke*
November 4th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Now you are showing some real understanding. Without the means to protect yourself you have no right to protect yourself.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Right. The more offensive it is, the more defensive it is. Got it.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Levi-Strauss is dead.
Thats awful I wonder who will make my jeans now?
November 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Ryan
never having met you I can’t make up my mind whether you’re a wind up or a plonker on this
November 4th, 2009 at 9:50 am
As a follow-up to the whole Fox News storm a couple of weeks ago I thought people might be interested in comments from Democrats who regularly appear on Fox:
Susan Estrich – campaign manager for Mike Dukakis in 1988.
My favourite was from Bob Beckel …a true-blue Democrat who worked for Robert F. Kennedy and ran Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign
Perhaps the penny is finally dropping on the other US networks. Here’s Joe Scarborough on MSNBC – performing an off-the-cuff, piss-take of the rantings of one of theirs – Olbermann-the-Insane.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Question for Oral Answer to the Minister of Transport:
How much taxpayer money is spent on roadside/TV/Print etc regarding advertising road safety messages annually?
Supplementary:
What safety messages, if any, are there printed on an infringement notice given to a motorist for breaking a road rule?
Supplementary
Wouldn’t it make sense to have road safety messages printed on infringement notices to target those who have broken a law? And if not why not?
Question to the Minister of Transport:
What taxpayers money, if any, is dedicated to actively promoting Defensive Driving lessons?
Supplementary:
Does the Minister agree that having a system where by any infringement notice dollar amount and subsequent demerit points, could be reduced or eliminated if the person who has broken the law could then present a certificate indicating that they had succesfully completed a defensive driving course. And does the Minister concur that this option could only be used once by any motorist over a five year period?
November 4th, 2009 at 10:03 am
IrishBill: It’s never an easy decision to pull another poster’s work but after some reflection I’ve decided this post constitutes an unwarranted personal attack and is out of line with the Standard’s policies and direction and have therefore removed it.
20 Responses to “The myth of objective journalism”
..eddie at the sub standard has been reprimanded and had post removed for writing a snotty bitchy blah about C Espiner sucking up to the Nats…what a bunch of clowns…censorship rules at the sub.. heh !
[DPF: Those interested can see the post at the bottom of front page of thorndonbubble.org. How silly]
November 4th, 2009 at 10:07 am
“nickb (761) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 8:21 am
http://www.cricinfo.com/pakvnz2009/engine/current/match/426720.html
For fucks sake.
We may as well play Daniel Vettori and 10 cardboard cutouts, the man is a legend, 34 off 10 in a high scoring game, and almost highest scorer as well.
But the rest of the monekys..”
Your facts are questionable, your premis is wrong and until the cancer that is Vettori is removed the NZ team will continue to flounder.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:07 am
what a bunch of clowns…censorship rules at the sub.. heh !,
You don’t follow written ‘policies and direction’, you get slapped, what’s the problem with that starboard?
November 4th, 2009 at 10:14 am
(non-ideological) pictures of stars..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/star-pictures-nasas-most-extraordinary-images-ever-photos/
November 4th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Your facts are questionable, your premis is wrong and until the cancer that is Vettori is removed the NZ team will continue to flounder.”
Uh… why?
If we are to remove Vettori from the team, we may as well denote ourselves to ICC associate status, and start playing 3-day games against kenya, canada and ireland.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:21 am
You don’t follow written ‘policies and direction’, you get slapped, what’s the problem with that starboard?
..if it goes against what they want to hear they wipe ya..same as red blert…at least here you can pretty much say your piece steveo…
November 4th, 2009 at 10:29 am
starboard, I’m concerned about your masochistic tendency to keep visiting the stranded. It reminds me of Blazing Saddles where Bart (the black guy) asks the KKK guys ‘where are all the white women at?”
November 4th, 2009 at 10:31 am
he he he, I just realised I’ve compared the stranded to the KKK. Now who can I compare Trev Alert to?
I’d compare the greens blog to the Pol Pot, but it lacks irony.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:39 am
heh heh ! I know but I cant help myself..reading their shite..the schreeking…the screaming..the venom..the pure hatred of the Nats…I cant poke the borax anymore .. they banned me but it was fun while it lasted…and as for that retard Iprent…
November 4th, 2009 at 10:40 am
‘Now who can I compare Trev Alert to?’
How about this RN?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losers_%28comics%29
“Now I know why we were born to lose”
November 4th, 2009 at 10:54 am
..if it goes against what they want to hear they wipe ya..same as red blert…at least here you can pretty much say your piece steveo…
Well I think it’s reasonable to expect a high-ish standard from article-posters, as they should simply be aware of what’s acceptable at the site they post on. You’re talking more about commenters on sites. Would like to know what the post said rather than it just being mysteriously removed though, maybe Irish should’ve put a red cross and stopped comments instead.
I agree with RightNow though, I removed The Standard from my RSS a couple of months ago, it’s pretty painful. Danyl, Lew and DPF can read it for me.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:20 am
sub standard/thorndon bubble..
Yay! Hey, John, we should get our own plane!
Check out the guy on the right. Yup, Colin Espiner brimming with excitement as his Johnny wins on election night. This is what is left of the myth of objective journalism – a political editor for a major daily reveling in the victory of a man who his supposedly impartial political coverage helped bring to power.
Some fret that the demise of newspapers and the rise of grassroots, Internet-based media will mean that political commentary will be amateur, sensationalist, biased, and partisan. I ask how that’s any different from what we have today.
…Nice photo of Colin though…
November 4th, 2009 at 11:40 am
From Stuff:
Isn’t it great having an international body dictating the regular affairs of state of a sovereign nation. So I wonder if they’ll ban veils, niqabs, hijabs, turbans, Stars of David as well?
November 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am
It does seem strange that devices used for torture and death are displayed so much. Some of them even included a model of a torturee nailed up and suffering. Isn’t that gross?
November 4th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Mike, put it this way – would you consider extendable batons defensive if they were being carried by a bunch of gang members?
November 4th, 2009 at 11:53 am
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/we-only-have-months-not-years-to-save-civilisation-from-climate-change/
whoar:sifting through the chaff..since 2005..
November 4th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Good to see Al Bore getting shit. Seems he appeared on the ABC morning show, ABC are Climate Change worshipers, Al was asked why he was still pigging out on burgers when 18% of gas emissions come from the production of meat. Poor Al look like a possum caught in the headlights, good to see the fat bastard squirming in his seat.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
What utter crap. Carbon is a cornerstone of life. I emit carbon with every breath I take. Carbon emissions do not lead to a change in climate, but changes in climate lead to changes in carbon emissions.
No, if civilisation needs saving, it’s from the nutters who write this nonsense, and from those who waste electrons by repeating it.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Magpie burgers are a healthy low fat alternative to beef burgers (if prepared properly) and as the Magpie is a persistant pest eating them is good for the ecosystem.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
got a link..?..bloody hands..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
“It prescribes a worldwide cut in net carbon emissions of 80% by 2020″, fucking idiots can prescribe all they like, 80% by 2020, yeah sure, not if I have my way. Fuck Phil we have so little time left, you should out on the town smoking up a storm. Where do you find this shit ?
November 4th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Isn’t it great having an international body dictating the regular affairs of state of a sovereign nation. So I wonder if they’ll ban veils, niqabs, hijabs, turbans, Stars of David as well?
Interesting article, had no idea they did things that way in Italy. I think that body would ban those things you mentioned if they were displayed in schools in the same manner as the crucifix, but since they’re mostly matters of individual religious expression (unlike the crucifix in this case, which seems to be ‘institutional’(?) expression), it seems less likely they would ban individuals from wearing/displaying them. Not knowing much about the area and all though. It doesnt mention it but i presume those were public schools too.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
are you an old fella stuffed..?
most climate-change deniers are old fellas..
and there is a psychological reason for that..eh..?
(and yes..it is to do with their impending demise..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/clive-james-isnt-a-climate-change-sceptic-hes-a-sucker-but-this-may-be-the-reason-george-monbiot/
November 4th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“got a link”, I’m not a link whore, try google.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“..Where do you find this shit ?..”
the guardian..it’s a rag published in london..
where do you get yours..?
(apart from fox..?..(snigger!)..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
“Plan B aims to stabilise climate, stabilise population, eradicate poverty, and restore the economy’s natural support systems.
It prescribes a worldwide cut in net carbon emissions of 80% by 2020″
LMAO!
A wolf never goes hungry for long Phillu, what Plan B would really do is put billions of backs up against the wall as the logistical structure that allows humanity to thrive breaks down.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
that’s what we’re facing llama..
(are you getting close to having your ‘oh shit!’-moment..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
It matters not, the results will be the same.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
It appears that most anthropogenic climate change deniers do so not because of any genuine desire for scientific exellence, but because they are concerned about the effect on their wallets.
Of course this is a seriously misguided motivation. It’s a bit like not wanting to put oil in your car engine and not expecting it to expire at some stage in the future.
And those who say the cure will kill the patient need to get real.
I won’t hold my breath. Probably more chance that Fox News will one day exhibit a ‘fair and balanced’ worldview.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Heres the link to Bobs comment (re: the dribbling fool Gore) Magpie.
I see he isn’t a veggie like you (his acolyte) and he has made a $1000,000,000 out of shafting dickheads about climate change pseudo-science so he is not a welfare recipient either (like you) food for thought eh——-meh—– (but no triple cheeseburgers—-eh).
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/
(Johnboy.sheep.Walton)
Happily fermenting Magpies since——— O shit I don’t remember (or care)——–meh——eh!
November 4th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I love those jeans. Who knew he was a philosopher too?
Heh – I only read just today what Einstein said about that – “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. “
November 4th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Einstein would know of predudices. He went to his grave disbelieving the quantum theory!
November 4th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
It might be convenient for your internal guidance system Luc, but on what evidence do you base that claim. The scientific fraud perpetrated by the IPCC is probably the worst scam in the history of mankind. Doctored stats, cherry-picked datasets, absence of peer review, blocking/ridicule of contra-viewpoints.
And why? To implement a global welfare scheme that will trap poor nations in dependence on the providence of the UN – in reality trap them in the grip of the strongest, most wealthy contributors.
No this isn’t about my wallet. It’s about the insatiable desire that some have for power. Not satisfied with sovereign national power they want to create another layer above and like a cheap magician, the myth of climate change is being used to take our collective eyes off the real maneuvering.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Re the discussion up-thread about liberalism and the effect on policing in NZ, I’m reading a book right now which details this topic in depth among others, in a series of essays.
It is called Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass (2001) ISBN 1566633826, By Theodore Dalrymple, a British psychiatrist who worked in a Birmingham hospital and prison for a decade (also Zimbabwe, Tanzania, South Africa and Kiribati and other places). I highly recommend it (and his other works) as this book gives a succinct and erudite insight with examples and factual arguments into why society has disintegrated so alarmingly, mostly based on his time observing patients and prisoners in Birmingham. One essay relates to Wellington on a visit he made a few years back, and more generally an analysis of NZ culture and criminality.
I urge you all to read it; it is fascinating.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Some of the polls I have done with my Y9 and Y10 classes over the last month or so:
1. Should boxing be banned?
Yes 5% No 95%
2. Was TVNZ right to try to bring the woman from Sensing Murder into the Aisling Symes case?
Yes 85% No 15%
3. Should Floyd Landis be allowed to cycle in the Tour of Southland?
Yes 97% No 3%
4. Do you agree with the banning of pseudoephedrine in over-the-counter medicines in the fight against P?
Yes 0% No 100%
5. Was it a good idea for Pita Sharples to invite 16 gang leaders to Wellington for a meeting?
Yes 40% No 60%
6. Should the five boys who posted pictures of themselves bowing to and saluting the Nazi flag be suspended?
Yes 23% No 77%
7. Should newspapers be freely allowed to publish rankings of high schools based on academic results?
Yes 54% No 46%
8. Should New Zealand set up a DNA database of all citizens, including newborns?
Yes 54% No 46%
9. Should MPs be able to claim the travel of wives, husbands or partners?
Yes 4% No 96%
November 4th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
“2. Was TVNZ right to try to bring the woman from Sensing Murder into the Aisling Symes case?
Yes 85% No 15%”
Bloody hell!
No wonder our “yoof” is so fucked up.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Perhaps I am. Not sure. I’ll ask my grandmother.
Edit: Bruv – Yes, that one was a bit alarming!
November 4th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“Some of the polls I have done with my Y9 and Y10 classes over the last month or so:”
Have you posted the results to Michael Laws yet?
November 4th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
bruv – Yeah, that one surprised me a lot, and is the only one I really disagreed with them on. A lot of them really, REALLY believe in psychics, and others were of the attitude, even if it’s crap, what harm does it do? None of them really cared too much about the conflict of interest which got me to pose the question in the first place.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“..9. Should MPs be able to claim the travel of wives, husbands or partners?
Yes 4% No 96%..”
not ‘if’..’when’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
If you look at this analysis
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/11/67_metres_in_ten_years.html#comment-627529
of a list of professional deniers from a denial conference it supports what Luc is saying, none are climate scientists, most have links to industry lobby groups.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Do you have a point Pete?
Philu is a climate change supporter therefore you are all morons right?
It is about facts and data Pete, not personalities.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
FFS, Phil – if I wanted to read your posts, I would go to your blog!
I don’t.
Take the hint.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
In fact, Phil, why do you bother with your blog at all when you re-post over here and then carry out all discussion on Kiwiblog?
November 4th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Geez Pete, perhaps these people are smart enough to have risen to become captains of industry, while use the same brains to see through the climate change myth.
And if you’re suggesting that their views are biased because of their affiliations, does that also apply to the IPCC’s ‘scientists’ who depend on their IPCC incomes to put food on the table at home?
November 4th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle
Phil the magpie said.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Trans
Might it have more to do with the amount of time kids spend glued to the TV these days?
Mind you, it may well be that our generation spent as much time in front of the box but the quality of program we watched was 100% better.
Today’s TV seems to be nothing more than endless reality shows and CSI crap.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Yes, climate change is about facts and data.
All scientists should have some skepticism, it is a part of their job.
Non-scientists who label themselves climate change skeptics are mostly lackeys (not captains of industry) hired to muddy the water, to create confusion and doubt and to stir up the gullible. It has become a standard tactic (“intelligent” design is another prime example).
Scientists don’t depend on IPCC incomes. They would seek and get funding for whatever research they are doing, if it wasn’t climate change they would be researching something else. That’s what scientists do. If it was proven tomorrow that we are doomed regardless and there is nothing we can do about it they would adjust their focus on what is deemed useful research until doomsday.
Scientists don’t label themselves climate change supporters, they just keep doing the real science and modify their views as each bit of new evidence comes up.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
MIKE:..”These people were doing what they were doing because the NZPolice weren’t doing their job?
I think we need to change both the law and the culture within the police and crown Law towards self defence by citizens.
This is an issue of competency, as part of the reason for the surveillance bill right now, is the lack of competency of the NZPolice in that area of operations.”
My Response:…..I think it likely that the ODT is using inflammatory language(Vigilante}. The Community Group was probably set up by the Community Constable at Martinborough. I doubt there would be more than two constables stationed there and they have to sleep.
I strongly agree with your second point…I think most of the Martinborough Community Group would have resigned their positions and no replacements would have been forthcoming following this incident. Pity such groups are an excellent deterrent to crime.
Final point partly right. The bill is aimed at consolidating the various existing powers of officials under one folder. The Police generally are given the enforcement powers other agencies have. As the powers are scattered at present through various different Acts individual Police are largely un-aware of what exactly their power is under say the Fisheries Act or even Dog Control Act hence they are often reluctant to act except when accompanied by the appropriate specialist Inspector, who often is not available. The consolidation should help.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Interesting claims on the stuff website about Destiny church applying pressure on people over money.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The EB’s just aren’t fun any more. Is there another religious minority we can pick on. Hey look over there! Destiny!
November 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Yes. And I am sure you know why.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
So Pete, have you got any science for us? Or just more slurs. What was Alinsky’s philosophy again? Denigrate and ridicule right.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
It’s about the insatiable desire that some have for power.
gotcha: conspiracy theorist rather than a free loading miser. It’s great to get to the nitty gritty.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
..trougher of the year under the guise of ” helping maori “…I wonder if he high-fived Rodney as they past in the terminal…
Just by way of example Te Reo Marama was established to combat Maori Smoking yet somehow Shane Kawenata Bradbrook saw fit to expend some $77,000 on international travel in the space of just three years. These figures are obtained from the OIA documents. Not only that over the past nine years under Labour Shane Kawenata Bradbrook has visited Chicago, USA in June 2000, Helsinki, Finland in August 2003, Hawaii, USA in November 2005, New York in April 2006, Washington DC in July 2006, Cairns, Australia in November 2006, Bangkok, Thailand in July 2007, Hawai again in Oct 2007, Broome, Australia in Nov 2007, Hawaii again!!! in May 2008, and Melbourne and Tuvalu in the same month, Durban South Africa in Nov 2008, Mumbai, India in March 2009, Perth, Australia in May 2009 and finally Darwin just recently in October 2009.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
90% plus of climate scientists are 90% confident we are creating a climate problem. IPCC is just one consensus summary of this.
If you are interested in real science and real scientists here is a good place to start:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
November 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I’m beginning to suspect Pete, that you are another of these climate change advocates that doesn’t actually know what piece of information it is that convinces them of the certainty of climate change. You just agree with people because you like the look of them.
Name the scientist and the study that provides the data that has convinced you.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Haha Realclimate.
You realise Gavin Schmidts latest publication is a picture book Pete?
November 4th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Here’s some science: The atmosphere is cooling. The oceans are cooling.
Temperature changes cause changes in levels of atmospheric Co2, not the other way around.
Polar bear populations are flourishing, not dwindling. The myth that they were all dying was based on discovery of 4 polar bears that had died after a nasty storm.
IPPC cherry-picked tree-ring dataset to support the theory of warming, discarding the vast majority that didn’t provide the outcome they wanted.
IPCC deliberately chooses starting points for statistical analysis that show the trend they’re wanting. Hurricanes are a good example. IPCC data starting from 1970 shows an increase. The actual data from 1940 shows a marked decrease.
Their Artic sea ice summer low point a few years ago was widely published, but not that fact that 6 months later the Antarctic summer sea ice was at its highest recorded level. For the last few years Artic sea ice has been expanding (Nasa images).
IPCC deliberately changed historical models to remove a well accepted period called the Medieval Warming Period because it’s existence cast doubt on other inputs they considered important for their climate ‘theorytail’
… and the list goes on.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Following on, does all this matter? Yes it should, because we’ve been lied to, and passionate people are embarking on various courses of action based on lies. The IPCC has an agenda that *should* make any thinking person shudder in disbelief. The scientific fraud for which they’re responsible for is doing incalculable damage because other scientists (the honest majority) are basing their research on incorrect/dishonest data.
And don’t start me on pollution. Pollution levels are inversely proportional to national wealth. No form of UN sanctioned quasi-government dispensing globally requisitioned welfare to poor nations will lift those nations out of poverty – quite the opposite. No, that kind of ‘welfare’ would simply entrench existing third-world conditions and perpetuate the squalor and pollution that we all would see fixed. Those nations need sustainable economic growth, not welfare.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I’m not a climate change advocate. I’m not sure about it. Of course I know the climate keeps changing, and I know there is some human influence, and I know that the vast majority of climate scientists think there could be a problem, so yes, I do put more weight on what nearly all climate scientists and science organisations think is supported by sufficient facts.
And I don’t put as much weight on what Lord Monckton the journalist says, especially when he is proven by Fox to have lied and he chooses to talk to unscientific special interest groups.
Last week I countered the well worn hockey stick criticism. I don’t take single quotes at face value, I try and double check, it isn’t difficult to do that on the ‘net.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Just went to pick up my Melbourne Cup winnings at two TAB branches in Dunedin and was unable to collect from either as they have run out of cash.
How can this possibly be? They must have been able to calculate last night how much they would expect to be paying out today.
The second branch I tried was the main branch for the city and they were unable to give me $800 as that would “leave us with nothing for the rest of the afternoon”. What kind of tinpot business are they running?
They certainly didn’t have any trouble collecting people’s stakes yesterday. But paying out seems to be somewhat difficult?
November 4th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I’m not sure about it. Of course I know the climate keeps changing,
If you’re not sure, shut up, and go and find out about and understand some scientific data.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Auckland bus drivers reject latest pay offer, despite it being recommended by their union
Is anyone really surprised though? The blame for this whole fiasco can be laid at the door of one Mike Lee, who if he hadn’t threatened NZ Bus the drivers wouldn’t have raised their expectations beyond what is reasonable in the current financial climate. Like i said elsewhere, have they learnt nothing from the actions of freezing workers in the last two decades?
November 4th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
What are you sure about Sonny?
What data do you base your certainty on?
November 4th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Pete George
“I’m not a climate change advocate. I’m not sure about it. Of course I know the climate keeps changing, and I know there is some human influence, and I know that the vast majority of climate scientists think there could be a problem, so yes, I do put more weight on what nearly all climate scientists and science organisations think is supported by sufficient facts.”
Despite agreeing with very little you have to say I know you are not stupid, therefore, I am amazed at that comment of yours. I expect the mindless chardonnay socialists to swallow all that climate change bullshit but I would have thought a bloke of your intelligence would at least want to have a look at the facts before throwing in your lot with one side or the other.
It is a fact that there is NO proof that climate change is caused by man, even Toad and Frog will have to admit as much, the whole climate change con has been hijacked by the hard left as a trojan horse for their political agenda of one world government and income redistribution.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Typical leftie fuckwit, can’t answer the question.
But seeing as you STILL are unable to provide ANY reason for your position, I’ll answer.
The window Pete. I’m not making any claims that what you see though it will be any different than what you saw yesterday.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Colonel Masters
Did you really think that the TAB would keep all that money laying about given the high number of Labour voters and low life scum who just about live in the TAB?
November 4th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Republicans thrashing incumbent Dems in Virginia and New Jersey.
Pete………Monckton offered to debate climate change on Fox with Al Gore. Guess who declined. Gore won’t debate with anyone yet by rights should be the most experienced debater available. Indicates to me he hasn’t the courage nor the conviction.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I reckon it’s great the Auckland bus drivers are striking.
It’s time for workers to stick it to the managers, who seem to receive over the top pay rises, even in a recession.
Just take a look at the Niwa head, getting a 50 grand pay rise to 550 k per year. Just crazy.
Management get bonuses by restricting the salary of lower level employees. This has just got out of hand, so it’s great to see some employees striking back.
Not sure the particulars with the bus drivers, but I understand they get about $15 / hour? Seems too low to me anyway.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Time that the people of Auckland fought back against these low life union scum.
Tell the bus drivers to go and get fucked, they need somebody to arrange an emergency car pool system, anybody who wants or needs a ride into town should wait at bus stops and pick up rides from other good natured Aucks who want to see the union low life crushed.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
because you’re talking about the police?
November 4th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Pete when is your head tosspot going to front up and argue the point? What a ball less wonder Bore is, the man is full of hot air and platitudes. Lord Monckton would kick his fat hairy arse but of course old Al knows this. I would of thought that if Lord Monckton was a liar Bore would be in like a robbers dog to sort him out. I know who the real liar is and he is covered in chicken shit for all to see.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
But other than that the fact CO2 has been as much as 7000ppm during the Cambrian (Thats the age of fishes Pete, so much for Ocean acidification), having been at 7000ppm and temperature being about 22 deg C (its about 14.5 today), both co2 and temp have dropped, therefore there was no ‘tipping point’ (which is always conveniently in the near future, is the anything in the world that greenies don’t think is near the ‘tipping point’).
Our current temperature trends are still following the pattern of ice ages and interglacials and data produced within the last decade has shown that co2 lags temp by 800 years. At the peak of temp during the interglacials which have been slightly warmer than today, temp and co2 has fallen rapidly, again no tipping point.
In recent times temp has fallen from 1940 to 1980 a period of increasing human output, and has stabilised since the turn of the last decade. During both of these periods human emmissions have been increasing, there are therefore other forcings that outweigh the effect of co2.
And Richard Lindzen is releasing a paper this year that shows with increasing temp and co2 the Earth has been observed to increase the rate of heat irradiance into space. Therefore the ‘greenhouse effect’ has not occurred as expected, rather a balancing increase in the rate of heat loss has been measured to occur.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Also, the supposed greenhouse effect of each additional amount of co2 becomes less and less. So therefore the majority of the greenhouse effect should already be upon us.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
The bus drivers deserve more than 17 bucks an hour. I’m on their side.
I reckon $25 hour would be about right, for the responsibility of driving around 300k machines.
After all, we do want to attract the best talent for the job (a phrase often used by managers justifying their own salaries).
November 4th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Wreck,
What do you think a reasonable bus fare should be?
November 4th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Wreck,
If you love bus drivers so much, why don’t you use their services whenever you can and give them a tip comparable to how much you believe they are worth.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
all of you deniers spout..and not one source/link to back any of it up..
‘cos there aren’t any..eh..?
and of course..bloody hands bob..being an animal exploiter/earth polluter..
is a tad hysterical…’cos he knows that his days doing what he is doing,,are numbered..
i repeat..not one link/source between you..
don’t you see what fucken clowns you are..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle ..eh..?
Phil the magpie said.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
This Richard Lindzen?
“He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.”
In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen “clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.”
Lindzen told the BBC that ExxonMobil was “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US” and that “they have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense.”
Also linked to the Heartland Institute.
Writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that “of all the skeptics, MIT’s Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he’s doing serious research on the subject.”
So of the skeptics society he does actually have some scientific credentials, but he is in a very small minority. He has discarded a number of his arguments as they have been disproven.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
can’t think up yr own..eh hurf..?
does it make your head hurt..?
you are really the ‘magpie’ here..eh..?
wot with yr ‘borrowing’ others’ ideas..?..eh..?
and not even a speechmark to acknowledge that you are not the author..eh..?
people reading that would be lead to think it was your ‘wit’..eh..?
is that what you are hoping for..?
(kinda ‘shabby’ there eh hurf..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Wreck, the problem is the bus system itself is unsustainable given that ARTA has to massively subsidise the system just to keep it functioning. The drivers are on pretty thin ground and as others have said there are plenty of ways that they could be done out of a job.
So instead of lamely claiming they are worth ‘x’ when they plainly aren’t, the drivers should be looking at how they can ensure there is still a job for them because at the moment they are only employed because of the good grace of the tax and rate paying public.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
November 4th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Shit, Phool, calm down. It’s only a running joke. Have a speedball.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
And to provide some balance I have searched the Internet and found this:
November 4th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
The bastards have turned down an 11.5% wage rise!
Sack the lot of them and hire people who want to work.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
‘always blow on the pie..!’
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
What’s the point in links Phil, anything we put up is not to be believe or will be a load of shit in your eyes and besides why would I bother, you’re the resident link whore, God forbid I should cramp your style. Oh the cows send their love and plenty of white stuff still coming out the back end. Did you notice our pay rise the other day, bet that got up your Melon nose. Like farming is a sunset industry and all, according to the socialist suckholes. As for being “hysterical” I think you may have more to be hysterical about, has Paula been around yet?
November 4th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Pete,
Are you suggesting that the data produced by Richard Lindzen and his colleagues is incorrect Pete, can you state in what way this is so?
It doesn’t matter a rats who the person was that was doing the measurements if they are correct.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Pete, a few questions
1. how many of the 3,146 scientists performed primary research on their own temperature and weather data, and how many relied on IPCC source data for their analysis? My contention is that there’s more fack in a JK Rowling novel than in the IPCC source data.
2. What was the peer-review method? Did the IPCC organise this peer review, of did scientists simply ask like-minded colleagues to review?
3. Wikipedia?!?
November 4th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
What is this bullshit and why are you bringing it up on a scientific matter? This is not a popularity contest.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
What particular peer reviewed research are you referring to Sonny?
November 4th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Pete, you’re worried about where funding comes from, questioning motives?
Extract:
Um, yes I think we have.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Certainly not the IPCC research which ignored the negative peer review feedback.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
getstaffed, the IPCC doesn’t do data. It reviews and assesses.
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm
November 4th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
That is a bit like saying that the cigarette industry puts a fraction of money into trying to disprove the dangers of passive smoking compared to the money governments put into cancer research.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I can’t be arsed finding all the research papers that show it as they are probably decades old but can you tell me which of the follwing you believe to be substanitally incorrect.
Co2 levels in the Cambrian period reached ~7000ppm
Temperatures in the Camrian period reached ~22 deg C
We have had several ice ages cycles in which the temperature cycled between 5 and 15 deg C
The CO2 levels followed the temp during the glacial cycles with a lag of ~800-1000 years
The average surface temp of the Earth cooled from ~1940 to ~1980
The average surface temp stopped increasing ~2000
The human output of CO2 and greenhouse gases increased from 1940-2009
As far as I am aware Richard Lindzens paper on irradiance will be published this month.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Well that is not very convincing is it?
November 4th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Careful getstaffed you are treading dangerous ground. Questioning climate change is heresy and Pete and his mates will be around to have a little bonfire ( after they pay for the credits of course ), with you being the center piece.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
As you can see from your karma, Pete, nothing will convince those who are hard wired to believe anything inconvenient to their way of life or beliefs, least of all informed debates (why should Al Gore give Monckton a platform? He’s too smart for that) and conclusions drawn from observed data using the scientific method. This method, by the way, that pervades virtually everything they do (including sex, at times).
For what it’s worth, here is as good an explanation I can give for accepting the argument of anthropological global warming without doing my own climate science degree and years of observations:
Global Climate Change and Scientific Proof
The global warming skeptics advance arguments against the conclusions of the IPCC. They argue that anthropogenic global warming has not been “proven”.
But there is no such thing as scientific proof. There are merely falsifiable theories. The ‘proof’ of a positive theory is simply the result of disproving all alternative theories.
We observe that the earth is getting warmer (there may be some controversy over correctness of methods to determine that, but even the skeptics seem to agree with that observation). Scientist offer plausible explanations. Some suggest it is caused by non-anthropogenic factors such as natural solar cycle increasing solar radiation, volcanos belching green-house gases, the tilt of the earth’s axis, reduced cloud cover due to natural factors. Some suggest it is caused by green-house gases resulting from burning of fossil fuels and the loss of forests and other CO2 sinks due to human activity.
One by one, scientists uncover evidence that falsifies the proposed explanations. They succeed in falsifying all theories but one: the increase in greenhouse gases, principally CO2, due to human activity.
Now, maybe the conclusion is wrong because there is some other, as yet unproposed theory, to explain the increase in global temperature. That is always a possibility in ANY scientific theory and that is why science can never prove anything. But until someone proposes another theory, or is able to show that the evidence which destroys an alternative theory is wrong, we are left with the anthropogenic model. And that is as close to ‘proof’ as anyone can get.
QED
For example, evolution is proved by the observed data, as is global warming over the long term (regardless of getstaffed’s presentation of a short term cooling that actually fits within the theory). The explanation, the theory, of evolution is natural selection, which has yet to be disproved hence its widespread acceptance: similarly for global warming (see above)
I must admit though, it’s valuable to be challenged so vociferously and “getmotivated” to study this again.
Naturally, though we tend to look at information that confirms our pre-existing view anyway, and this is true of all of us. While a blind “argument from authority” can be fallacious, I think the sheer weight of the consensus of the relevant scientific community overrides this possibility.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Great to see that the Democrats are taking a hammering in the gubernatorial elections, the Virginia exit polls make fascinating reading.
Seems that the result is all about Obama and the people’s dissatisfaction with him.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Questioning climate change is standard amongst the scientific community. That’s how they operate.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
In the last few decades Virginia has always voted in the opposite party to the incumbent so this result is expected.
Exit polls showed that the majority are still happy with Obama.
McDonell (R) was a respected candidate.
Deed (D) was regarded as a weak candidate who didn’t run a very good campaign.
The New Jersey loss is more of a blow to the Ds.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I do not see why such a heated debate is taking place.
Global Warming is nonsense; large corporate interests will pay opinion makers to ensure everyone changes their mind and realises global warming is nonsense; Governments’ will abandon all their idiotic policies which harm business.
This will happen because large corporate interests are rich and Greenies/scientists/loons are poor
Welcome to how planet Earth has operated for thousands of years.
You chaps can say and do whatever you like but inevitably capitalist multinationals will win because they always do and you will have to lump it and the right people will continue to earn vast profits and life will go on as it should.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
November 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
They do ‘do’ data. It’s just you and I only get to see the published reports. As do universities the world over who uses this material as course content. The IPCC’s ‘Expert Review’ is managed in-house, presumably by hand-picked frendlies.
If you think the IPCC are playing with straight dice when the volume of evidence against much of their published material is mounting, then I wish you well as the climate change ‘theorytail’ unwinds.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
NY-23 is sooooooooooooo cloooooooooose. If the people who voted for Scuzzlebutt voted for Hoffman, he would be ahead now. FUCK.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
“..Sonny Blount (334) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I can’t be arsed finding all the research papers that show it as they are probably decades old ..”
so..the last scientific reading you did on this is ‘decades old’..eh..?
and bloody hands bob ‘can’t be bothered’putting up any links/supporting evidence..
fucken clowns..!..q.e.d…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Welcome to how planet Earth has operated for thousands of years.
Just how many thousands is that again, Elijah??
November 4th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Luc 4:54pm – I have lost count…ha ha!
But the point remains that you lefty chappies are fighting a battle you have already lost; the reason you have lost is the interests you are fighting make too much money for too many people for them to be cast aside in favour of you.
My mind boggles as to why you bother.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
November 4th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Eli, it’s fun, just like debating with creationists.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Fucking Scuzzlebutt. 1 million USD on her and she goes and endorses Owens and sucks up Hoffman’s votes.
Hope she gets a cushty job from Otwat in return and fucks off.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Hurf:
I understand your pain, but do not share it. The GOP victories in the NJ and Va governor races were definite slaps at Obama, but the District 23 outcome, if the results hold, indicate that upstate New Yorkers do not like external meddling in their affairs or simply are not as conservative as the meddlers. Even if the campaign for governorship was dominated by local anti-corruption issues, the NJ loss was particularly bad for Obama because that state traditionally tends to go Dem, Obama won the state by 18 percent last year and had invested much political capital on Corzine. The VA loss is not as bad, since outside of the DC suburbs it tends to be rural-conservative, and with some racial voting patterns (which helped explain why Obama “only” won by 6 points there). Beyond the District 23 special election, there were a a dozen or so mayoralties at stake and so far they have gone mostly Democratic. Ballot initiatives on same-sex marriage and medical marijuana are also trending left.
So the message after one year partially follows the tradition of turning against the president on broad scope issues while favoring local concerns over national ones in most races. The repudiation of Obama is only partial, not complete. Given that overall turnout was low, including in all of the high profile elections (lower turnouts tend to favor Republicans), that would indicate that many voters are adopting a wait and see policy believing that one year is too short a timeframe in which to judge the president. But he and the Democratic congressional caucus have certainly been put on notice that their coattails are a double-edged sword, and hence they need to proceed with caution when formulating their agendas in the run-up to next November’s far more important mid-term elections (where all of the House and several senate seats will be up for grabs).
November 4th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Public Notice:
To whom it may amuse.
I (Johnboy.sheep.Walton) being in almost sound mind and slightly fucked body hereby duly authorise all who sail in the good ship KB (under the inspired command of Admiral Farrar) to use the phrase.
‘Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle
Phil the magpie said.’
and all variations of such phrase including additions such as———eh? or ———-meh? etc etc
The sole purpose of the use of this phrase shall be to mightly piss off PhilU (aka ‘Magpie’ ‘Heckle’ ‘Jeckle’ ‘Bludger’ and other alias’s.) as often as possible in an endeavour to reduce the enormity/boredom of his comments.
Signed (Johnboy.sheep.Walton)———-Baaaaaah!!
November 4th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Climate change is a religion, confirmed in a UK court case.
In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.
Game over.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
November 4th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
‘always blow on the pie..!’
‘Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle
Phil the magpie said.’
November 4th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“..The sole purpose of the use of this phrase shall be to mightly piss off PhilU ..”
um..!..really..?
hardly ..eh..?
so much effort for such little result..eh..?
ah well..i guess it keeps you .. and the other great thinkers/’wits’..out of trouble..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle..Im a tool ” says the magpie..
November 4th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
look..!..there’s one now..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
“quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle..Where’s my bong ” says the magpie..
November 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
look..!..there’s Paula now..!
(Johnboy.sheep.Walton)
November 4th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Luc
“Why should Al Bore give Monckton a platform? hes to smart for that” Oh fucking please Luc, that snake oil salesman, Bore, would be mince meat, something Al likes sinking his fat chops into. Bore would have to be one of the all time leading hypocrites. House that uses 20 times the power of an average home, private jet aircraft pumping out tons of co2 and a collection of dribbling lefties as thick as pigshit hanging of his every utterance. No Luc the man is coward and a bullshit artist. Not that it really matters, this shit is history, Mac Daddy has just had a good arse kicking and the loony left will be shit scared to sign on the dotted line now, it’s all over Luc. Better find another cause to get your nickers into a twist.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Borker – I note the UK decision was in respect of a Greenie who refused to travel by plane etc.
I wonder if a consumer who refuses to pay carbon tax or ETS-style charges would be afforded the same protection of the courts?
That would be only fair of course, but I doubt that will happen… meaning adherents of the Climate Change™ religion will have the support of law while non-adherents will not.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
@NeilR:
All public transportation systems around the world are subsidised. Fare prices bear no relation to the cost of providing the service.
If you wanted the public transportation to be funded solely from fare revenue, then there would be no public transport system in auckland.
Given that Aucklanders have decided to fund public transport, they must treat the employees with respect and pay them a wage on which they can support their families in the most expensive city in the country.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I watched TV One’s item about the bus drivers stop work meeting today and the drivers “refusal” of the 11.5% pay offer.
It seems that near enough to half of the drivers were happy to accept the offer, indeed, many of those interviewed as the came out of the meeting said as much.
Apparently, the union thugs hijacked the meeting to ensure that the workers turned the offer down.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Woeful ignorance Luc,
The greenhouse effect is not a theory that is being challenged, it is accepted by all as the phenomenen that gives the Earth its current temperature. What is disputed is a prediction about the future, it’s not really even about CO2, but imagined ‘forcings’.
It is the same as feeding a 100kg man 1,000 potatoes and predicting he will then weigh 200kg. You don’t need to disprove the theory of metabolism to disagree with the prediction of what his weight will be.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“It is the same as feeding a 100kg man 1,000 potatoes and predicting he will become the MP for Ikaroa Rawhiti”
November 4th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
thank. you. bruv !
cab sav sprayed all over the monitor. bastard!
November 4th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Also the predictions are not valid because climate is a chaotic system and cannot be modelled using a computer.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Does that include your predictions Sonny?
November 4th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
What predictions Pete? I don’t use a computer model to look out the window.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Pete George 7:23 pm,
The fact that none, and I do mean NONE, of the computer models predicted the global cooling of the last 10 years shows just how pathetic these models are at ‘predicting’ climate change.
I mean if the 6 O’clock news can’t predict the weather even half the time twenty four hours hence, why would we trust computer models which predict the next 100 years, when ALL of them got the last ten years totally wrong?
AGW is a religion, pure and simple.
The second greatest pseudo scientific ‘theory’ foisted upon a gullible Mankind in all recorded history.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10607156
This today from HNZ.
Essential facts.
The taxpayer has been well and truly fleeced by HNZ and its tenants. Housing repairs last year rose by 37 million dollars to 217 million dollars and rates rose 11 million to 109 million.
Operation income i.e. rents were 887 million.
Quote:
Most of Housing NZ’s revenue – [b]54 per cent – comes from income-related rent subsidies, 39 per cent comes from tenants
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic … d=10607156
So the tax payer spends a fair bit housing his/her other family. Paying for the entitlements of his/her other family when it comes to funding council activities. Activities that taken for granted by the tenants. Tenants who have a vote as of right but are not required in any way to fund local body activities.
N.B. in many area’s HNZ also pays in its rates bill for supplies such as water, rubbish collections and so on.
If Blenglish is going to change the rules around landlords and deductibility from incomes for rental properties then he needs to talk to his Ministers about these public rorts of the system.
Kinda interesting that a lot of the noise about various rorts involving parliamentarians (which need fixing, no question) is generated from the very people who are up to their necks in the rort that is HNZ, Social Welfare and taxpayers providing them a privilege.
It is pleasing to note that rents are rising at last and this today;
Rental activity was also strong, with the average weekly rent achieved by Barfoot & Thompson’s property management division lifting over $400 for the first time to $403, a whopping 4.9 percent increase on the levels of just a month earlier.
“This is the first time average weekly rents have climbed above the $400 mark, and the increase in average weekly rents over those for the previous month was $19, or 4.9 percent,” Thompson said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3030110/House-market-sizzles
Now I would suggest that this is just the start of at least two years of rising rents. Shortage of housing will ensure it happens. If Blenglish wants to attack those that have rental housing and have subsidized others living spaces for a number of years now then he better be prepared to either buy a lot of houses at ever increasing prices, spend more on the housing subsidy or stop NZ’s population from growing. interference in a market place always creates distortion.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
In order:
Billy, you misrepresent the finding. The green philosophy adopted by the plaintiff is the belief: the science is climate change.
sideshow, personal or institutional failings do not invalidate the science. And you should calm down. I have nothing in a twist over moves to address climate change; rather it is the deniers wo seem to find it necessary to resort to ad hominem rants.
Sonny, all scientific theories are under constant challenge. But anthropogenic global warming is still the consensus findings of the specialists. I wonder if you would argue as much with your heart surgeon. Also, it’s true climate is chaotic, but patterns over huge time spans do exist and these patterns tell us that there is something different afoot this time.
Kris, in my opinion the greatest psuedo science foisted upon man is religion, including “miracles” and creationism.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Improving climate models and predictions
Monday 2 November 2009 at 14:03 GMT
You may find this difficult to believe, but climate science is not conducted within the pages of newspapers, or on the websites of the world’s more opinionated bloggers. But for those without ready access to the ongoing debate among scientists, one could be forgiven for thinking that it is.
Climate predictions rely on models of the Earth’s atmosphere, and models are, owing to the complexity of the natural world and the limited computational power at our disposal, idealised representations of reality. However, simplified though they can sometimes be, climate models are subject to continuous development and refinement as we learn more about the Earth system. Uncertainties in the predictions made with the aid of models are thereby reduced.
Contrary to the claims of anthropogenic climate change sceptics and outright deniers, the science of global warming is settled. What continues to be debated are the finer details of the processes involved and their complex interactions. These are of course crucial, and there is much discussion within the Earth science community about uncertainties in climate models, and the impact these have on predictions which will have huge social and economic ramifications.
In a recent issue of the American Geophysical Union’s house journal Eos, Columbia University researcher Lisa Goddard and others discuss among other things the issue of uncertainty, and the difficulty in making predictions with climate models.
“Although scientific effort never will eliminate uncertainty, it can better estimate uncertainty. This is especially true at the time scales of seasons to decades, which are the most actionable time scales. These are the time scales at which incremental adaptation can evolve with the help of appropriate state-of-the-art climate predictions.”
Goddard and her colleagues go on to stress that climate science is inherently probabilistic in nature, and, as such, individual models cannot be used for point-specific climate forecasting. This crucial point must be hammered into the dense skulls of pundits and policymakers who cannot seem to cope with anything other than simple, binary logic. What is needed, say the authors, is for decision makers to learn how to treat information about future climate as a range of possibilities.
http://sedgemore.com/2009/11/improving-climate-models-and-predictions/
November 4th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
And Kris: “The fact that none, and I do mean NONE, of the computer models predicted the global cooling of the last 10 years shows just how pathetic these models are at ‘predicting’ climate change.”
I googled: climate cooling anticipated
and top of the page was
For years, Russians have been predicting global cooling because of an anticipated change in the sun’s output. They do not necessarily contest the validity …
http://www.energyendgame.com/Cooling.htm – Similar -
November 4th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
And I have found myself with an open mind on the subject of global warming. It is happening, but what is the cause? Humankind, cyclical weather patterns, or a combination of both?
November 4th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
OH Dear and we have just ordered another 14 of these flying machines.
etstar ‘blackout’ link to fatal Air France crash
Article from: The Courier-Mail
* Font size: Decrease Increase
* Email article: Email
* Print article: Print
* Submit comment: Submit comment
Geoff Easdown and Geraldine Mitchell
November 03, 2009 11:00pm
A JETSTAR plane may have suffered the same malfunction last week that brought down an Air France jet in the Atlantic in June, killing all 228 on board.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority are probing the similarities between both incidents.
At 1.30am on October 29 the pilot of the Jetstar Airbus 330-200 reported an instrument blackout as the jet, carrying 200 passengers, passed through storm clouds between Japan and the Gold Coast.
Investigators are treating the incident as serious and have downloaded information from the jet’s flight data recorders before the jet was released back to the airline. After normal flight was resumed, the crew radioed Jetstar’s Melbourne HQ for advice where it was determined that the plane should fly on to the Gold Coast.
* Qantas probe: Pilots ‘forgot to lower wheels’
* The Punch: Black box – or brown undies?
The aircraft landed five hours later without the passengers knowing what happened.
During the six-second blackout, the automatic pilot malfunctioned and fluctuating readings were transmitted by one of the jet’s three airspeed indicators, a similar situation to what the pilot of the Air France jet is said to have reported in his final radio message before his aircraft broke up and plunged into the ocean.
Jetstar said last night that early indications were the airspeed sensing system suffered a momentary interruption, after which the instruments returned to normal. “The crew remained in full control of the aircraft at all times and responded in accordance with training and procedure,” the airline said.
A spokesperson said the carrier was also liaising closely with Airbus on the issue, adding that a number of parts were replaced during a detailed examination of the jet before it was allowed to resume flying.
The Jetstar and Air France jets were similar models, Airbus 330-200 jetliners.
Until now Jetstar parent Qantas has steadfastly maintained its jets are different to the doomed Air France airliner.
Jetstar aircraft are fitted with different speed sensors to those used on Air France planes and which investigators believe may have iced up and caused the mid-Atlantic disaster.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
# huttriverofnz(1) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
And I have found myself with an open mind on the subject of global warming. It is happening, but what is the cause? Humankind, cyclical weather patterns, or a combination of both?
hutt, where have you been hiding? There is enough information and links above for you to do your own research. Try it. You might even like it.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that victims of extraordinary rendition cannot sue Washington for torture suffered overseas, because Congress has not authorized such lawsuits.
This case concerned a Canadian citizen detained in the US and exported to Syria where he was held in humiliating and inhuman confinement and subject to torture for 12 mths. The Canadian government later declared him innocent and awarded him about C10 million dollars. He then sued the US government but a federal court said it can’t find for him because national security interests trump everything else.
Thin about it: it is now officially non-actionable, legally, for the US government to pick you up in US territory, charge you with no crime, torture and/or kill you in a state that allow these practices. You or your family will receive no compensation even if you are proved innocent. The US government has not contested any of the plaintiffs allegations.
Let’s hope the plaintiff appeals and the Supreme Court arrives at a the kind of decision we expect from the land of the free.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Has anyone figured out how to kill manbearpig yet? I know the science is settled on his existence but how do we actually kill him?
And why are the worlds leaders still having a conference on manbearpig if they really believe he is real? Is someone trying to use the hype over manbearpig for another reason?
November 4th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Pete, with respect, that’s complete nonsense. The science on which the theory/theories are based is so far from settled that one will find more fact in a JK Rowling novel.
In many cases this science is based on source data that’s been ‘adjusted’, or not-peer reviewed, or plain fabricated (ie the removal of the Medieval Warming Period from IPCC’s released datasets, ice caps are melting when ther are expanding, the ocean is warming when it is, in fact, cooling etc).
In other cases cherry-picked datasets have been adopted in support while the majority of ‘unsupportive’ datasets from the same knowledge domains have been dropped. Google ‘CRU Yamal data set’ for more info.
The adoption of arbitrary start and end dates for trend mapping in support of pre-determined outcomes is rife. The incidence of hurricane occurrence is a great exampled here. IPCC use data from 1970 which shows an increasing trend. Data from 1940, which they chose to withold, reveals a decreasing trend.
No, the science is not settled. It’s it riddled with bullets of truth and scientific sunlight, and the worshipers at the altar of climate change are rightfully worried.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
For the record I agree with getstaffed, the science is not settled on AGW, but manbearpig is alive and well in the fearful minds of AGW believers everywhere. The hunt continues, he MUST be killed.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Rodders Hide is in the shit!
Marvelous stuff! “Key does nothing” the headline rings.
Look for ACT to hit true minority status after this gaffe. I wonder if Rodders is in any way related to Prince Philip?
November 5th, 2009 at 7:01 am
MARTIN van BEYNEN
Just another amoral commie creep posing as a journalist.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:17 am
I’m with getstaffed
the science is not settled but the results were before they were in!
November 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Luc Hansen [November 4th, 2009 at 8:50 pm],
And the rest of the quote:
Global cooling gains some credibility – February 8, 2008
“For years, Russians have been predicting global cooling because of an anticipated change in the sun’s output. They do not necessarily contest the validity of global warming from greenhouse gases, but they point out that if the sun gets “cooler” everything else does not matter.”
Interesting that this info comes out in 2008 when we’ve already had about 10 years of cooling. But notice, too, that they “do not necessarily contest the validity of global warming from greenhouse gases”. Sounds like a bob each way if you ask me.
The fact that those that believe AGW is a psuedo scientific contrivance have also stated that reducing sun spot activity is in fact the primary driver for climate cooling reveals that this is basic common sense. Heck, even I predict climate change in accordance with sun spot activity – whoopdy do.
ALL of the computer models the IPCC used predicted uncontrolled AGW. The fact that for the last 10 years we’ve had global cooling has frustrated their religious aims no end – of course now they call it ‘Climate Change’, not ‘Global Warming’.
It’s a religion, Luc, and you’ve got a lot more spadework to do to overcome the avalanche of evidence against AGW.
Good luck with that.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Rodney Hide, another swaggering fool politician opening his mouth without engaging his brain.
It’ll blow over. On the subject of fulsome pollies though, anyone else hear Tim Shadbolt admit he was trying to roll his deputy because he was jealous of him?
Slow down & let that brain catch up Tim.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
The point with global cooling, Kris, is that it gives us a window to actually put in place changes in the way we do things in the long term interests of the planet. Everywhere we go on the internet, scientific magazines etc there is no serious rebuttal of global warming.
And the smart money is on it being in large part due to human activity. Now you stick to your risible quotations out of a scientifically risible work of art – literature – by all means, but I swing in behind the precautionary principle when such stakes are involved and my chioldren and grandchildren are depending on us adults to do the right thing.
Swanning around on a flying carpet of speech marks just marks you as an enemy of mankind, basically. Al Qaeda ain’t got nothing on you and your mates above.
It makes me wish I had taken psychology at uni so I had more insight into what drives such self-endangering behaviour. Maybe you secretly wish for Armageddon. You should be careful what you wish becuse according to your nonsense god gave us life and
“Whatsover God giveth, God taketh away.”
November 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Luc Hansen 2:23 pm,
Gee you talk a lot of crap, Luc.
You and Gore are two peas in the same pod – so I shouldn’t be surprised.
And if you’re really concerned about the (eternal) wellbeing of your children and grandchildren, then I have some reference materials you could give them. As you already have all the answers, though, I guess it unlikely you’ll be taking up my offer. Your loss, and sadly, theirs as well.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
oh dear..!..the fundamentalist is having a smug/condescending/arrogant/patronising-moment..
(they are prone to those..those fundamentalists..)
btw..i hope you always wear clean underwear..eh..?
never can tell when the rapture will kick off..?
eh..?
have you thought of going to the top of a mountain..?
and just waiting for it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 5th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Phool,
Do you ever get sick of shouting into an echo chamber?
It’s interesting that most of the things you accuse me of are in fact attributes that you possess. Attributes that you portray to others that take the trouble to read your dots and dashes. As I’ve said before; I’m surprised that DPF even gives you the oxygen to breath in this blog. I know I wouldn’t.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
“..I know I wouldn’t..”
that’s no surprise..eh..?
fundies aren’t known for any tolerance of free-speech..
(it’s just another of their little ‘quirks’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)