General Debate 6 December 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment51

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (51)

Login to comment or vote

Rachael Rich

Can I beat Billy Borker to comment first!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 1:51pm
kaya

Rachael just drop the last three words in your post and the answer is “YES”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 1:59pm
Rachael Rich

Now I have acheived that lets discuss “butter faces”! This is written by a women. Is she being catty or does she have a point?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-02/mistress-lookalikes/

And what is it with cocktail waitresses. Tiger Woods and George Clooney really seem to enjoy their company.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 2:00pm
Whafe

Great little article Racheal….

Hard to argue with it too…. Who knows, guess it really hits home about just what percentage of both men and woman screw around on their partners! I read somewhere that statistically, more woman do, it just doesnt seem that way because men tell the mates, where as woman are far more discrete…..

Each to their own I guess…. For me, it was what I didnt know didnt hurt me…. Silly saying, but was true…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 2:13pm
Whafe

Just to get all the Tiger Woods jokes in one spot:

What’s the difference between a car and a golf ball? Tiger can drive a ball 400 yards.

Tiger Woods wasn’t seriously injured in the crash, but he’s still below par.

What were Tiger Woods and his wife doing out at 2.30 in the morning? They went clubbing.

Tiger Woods crashed into a fire hydrant and a tree. He couldn’t decide between a wood and an iron.

Apparently the police asked Tiger’s wife how many times she hit him. She said “I don’t know exactly but put me down for a 5.”

What’s the difference between a car and a golf ball? Tiger can drive a ball 400yds.

It was just reported that Phil Mickelson contacted Tiger’s wife to pick up some tips on how to beat Tiger.

Tiger Woods is so rich that he owns lots of expensive cars. Now he has a hole in one.

Tiger Woods has been dropped by Gillette after admitting that his crash was the closest shave he had ever had.

A movie is being developed base on events, titled “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Hydrant”.

EA Sports are releasing new Playstation game… “Tiger Woods 2010, Grand Theft Auto.”

What does Tiger Woods have in common with baby seals? They both get clubbed by Norwegians.

After a wayward drive, Tiger Woods found water before nestling behind a tree.

Apparently, the only person who can beat Tiger Woods with a golf club is his wife.

Perhaps Tiger should be using a driver?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 2:27pm
Rod

Another on Tiger:
Tiger now has a new name: Cheetah.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 2:35pm
side show bob

For all you AGW believing morons out there. There is a brilliant you tube clip of Nick Griffin, member of the BNP and member of the European parliament giving the global warming tossers a piece of his mind. Great short speech, spells it out in black and white. If I was this man I would be very worried, the NWO scum probably have a contract out on him already. Would post a link but still haven’t mastered this talent yet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 2:37pm
Say Goodbye to Hollywood

This the one SSB? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-DEz2fXPrM
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 2:53pm
Scorpio

try this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KDdCuEX91A
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 2:55pm
Scorpio

This is good too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXmYcq5_SzA&feature=related
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:02pm
philu

required reading for righties/freemarketeers…

http://whoar.co.nz/2009/the-day-when-alan-greenspan-had-his-freemarket-ideology-mea-culpai-was-wrong-moment/

“..Greenspan’s nemesis on the panel, Henry Waxman, pushed him to a deeper conclusion, in this remarkable exchange:

Waxman: The question I have for you is, you had an ideology, you had a belief that free, competitive — and this is your statement — “I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivalled way to organize economies. We have tried regulation, none meaningfully worked.” That was your quote. You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying the price. Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?

Greenspan: Well, remember, though, what an ideology is. It’s a conceptual framework with [sic] the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to. To exist, you need an ideology. The question is, whether it is accurate or not. What I am saying to you is, yes, I found the flaw, I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I have been very distressed by that fact.

Waxman: You found a flaw?

Greenspan: I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

Waxman: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working.

Greenspan: Precisely. That is precisely the reason I was shocked ..

.. because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well..”

(it’s kinda like the pope coming out and saying..’hey..!..i was only kidding..!’..

..eh..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:11pm
side show bob

Thanks SGTH, that’s the one. I see we both got -ve karma for that effort. The truth is like light is to vampires, the bastards can’t handle it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:15pm
johnbt

possums, it’s called agenda 21.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:16pm
philu

“..Would post a link but still haven’t mastered this talent yet…”

does your ludditism know no bounds..?

(and you are a fan of the national front..eh..?

figures..!..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:16pm
Chris C

side show bob
December 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

For all you AGW believing morons out there. There is a brilliant you tube clip of Nick Griffin, member of the BNP and member of the European parliament giving the global warming tossers a piece of his mind. Great short speech, spells it out in black and white. If I was this man I would be very worried, the NWO scum probably have a contract out on him already. Would post a link but still haven’t mastered this talent yet.

Hahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Awesome, yes. Let’s listen to a holocaust denying neo-Nazi Hitler admirer on AGW. HE HAS PERFECT CREDENTIALS!!!

Try this one, where he’s talking on the same platform as KKK Grand Wizard David Duke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw

Or try this one, where a BNP rally classed as “entertainment” by Griffin starts off with the hilarious line, “A nigger walks into a bar with a parrot on his shoulder…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN8MZv6Nyqc&NR=1
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:20pm
philu

gee..!..bloody hands bob..as well as making yr money from abusing animals..

you are also racist scum..

quite ‘the package’..aren’t you..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:23pm
Chris C

Try this one too, where Griffin is shown that his 2:2 degree from Cambridge is worth fuck all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n8l6Gjws2s

Or this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp3LJBzSW5E
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:25pm
dad4justice

“making yr money from abusing animals..”

Clearly you are smoking horse dung. Since when was cow tit pulling abuse?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:28pm
philu

gee..!..dpf..

i thought you would do a post on that volte-face from the guru of yr economic/political worldview/belief system..eh..?

i mean..!..big-news..!..eh..?

(kinda like glenn beck saying:..’hey..!..i was kidding..!..don’t believe a word i said..!..i’m actually a socialist!’..)

eh..?

and..what now..?

eh..?

do you still cling to the ideological-wreckage..?

or try to retire/re-evaluate/re-think … with some dignity..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:30pm
Rufus

Don’t know what I think about the BNP or Nick Griffin, but give that man a medal!

What a GREAT little speech – that man’s got some cajunas. Wonderful to see someone take a stand against all this nonsense.

Now if only we had someone of equal calibre in New Zealand…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:37pm
getstaffed

From The Telegraph:

:
Despite the drive to do a deal to cut emissions at Copenhagen its is estimated that there will be around 1,200 limousines on the city’s road this week – of which just five will be either electric cars or hybrids. Copenhagen’s main airport, furthermore, says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets.

It’s not about the climate, nor is it about emissions. It’s about the ruling political classes gathering to push the incremental evolution of global governance.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:38pm
philu

and what comes across in that mea culpa from greenspan..is his level of surprise..at his wrongness..

and in this he is like brash..

both are actual ‘believers’..

this was no cynical powerplay..on the part of either..

both greenspan..and his mini-me..brash..were/are ‘true believers’..

now we come to the embarrassing bit..

‘cos going by his ongoing prescriptions/pronounements..

brash does not yet know how ‘wong’ he is..

so..who is going to take him aside..sit him down..and tell him..?

(i think it’d be better if it were someone he knows/trusts..eh..?..

i’m sure it will come as somewhat of a shock to him..

“;alan said what..?..”

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:39pm
Rufus

Nice to see all the ad hominem nonsense coming out.

Childish.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:43pm
side show bob

Chris C, yeah but I bet if Nick Griffin was some left fucktard and was delivering the same message you and the idiot phool would be dribble fawning two bobs. Phool was loudly condemning me the other day for shooting the messenger and not embracing the massage despite the fact that he was shown up by some posters as been a deluded fool. You may not like the mans politics but he is right on the money when it comes to the AGW bullshitters and the NWO. Of course you may yet get your socialist utopia but like anything socialism touches it will turn to shit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:50pm
Pete George

Canadian climate scientists report hacking and break in attempts

At the University of Victoria, attempts to hack into scientists’ computers have been documented and physical break ins into their offices have occurred.

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m12d5-Canadian-climate-scientists-report-hacking-and-break-in-attempts
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 3:51pm
Chris C

# side show bob
December 6th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

Chris C, yeah but I bet if Nick Griffin was some left fucktard and was delivering the same message you and the idiot phool would be dribble fawning two bobs. Phool was loudly condemning me the other day for shooting the messenger and not embracing the massage despite the fact that he was shown up by some posters as been a deluded fool. You may not like the mans politics but he is right on the money when it comes to the AGW bullshitters and the NWO. Of course you may yet get your socialist utopia but like anything socialism touches it will turn to shit.

You make my balls ache with fear when you talk like that.

I’m sure if you even understood the first thing about Nuck Gruffun, you’d understand why half of your idle twaddle about “socialist utopias” and presumptions that I’m part of the same cabal as “some left fucktard” is a deluded, paranoid, persecuted little pool of wank.

Next, please. If you can’t deliver anything other than paranoia, then you’re best kept in a cage and poked with sticks for the amusement of others.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 4:01pm
side show bob

Chris C, then what part of the speech is wrong?, I take it all of it as far as you are concerned. You are quite prepared to dismiss these comments simply because you do not approve of the deliver. In your eyes who would be suitable person to make the same speech and not be picked apart because you disapprove, the pope, the queen, Al bore?. As far as I’m concerned if we a silly enough to sign up to this shit then there is a good chance many of us will end up in cage or worst still starving. I don’t mind if you believe I’m paranoid from what I have seen and heard I believe I have every right to be.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 4:20pm
Rod

Occasionally we have a point made here that NZ could benefit from an upper house of some form. Helen’s electoral finance act inspired one such discussion – probably would not have passed had we had some checks and balances on the unbridled power of the NZ PM.

Just watching the patterns of the Aussie Senate and US Senate opponents for ETS/Cap&Trade legislation, I wonder if we would have had this legislation passed in NZ if we had an upper house that reviewed such legislation. As things stand, we do look a little out of place having rushed it through, while most others have been rather more cautious – for what is now looking like some very good reasons.

Our political structure since the upper house was done away with does not protect us well from “heat of the moment” decision making by the government in power.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 4:28pm
OECD rank 22 kiwi

Nick Griffin will be attending the Copenhagen climate conference and representing the European Parliament, as he sits on its environment committee.

A fun fact, the BNP is as popular in the UK as the Green party.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 4:38pm
Chris C

Bob:

The speech is, you are correct, tainted by the deliverer.

However, the content is another paranoid, conspiracy-tinted, rant that could have been lifted straight from the comments section of Kiwiblog, or wherever else you find paranoid conspiracy theories that involve the global/intellectual/leftist/political elite, or references to Stalin or Mao, or suggestions that climate change is the left’s way of taking control of the globe, or whatever the fuck else you want to dream up in the same way that leftard cranks of the equivalence of Griffin – George Galloway, for example – blame the entire Iraq war on the procurement of oil.

The green industrial complex is a hilarious one from the speech, especially when you factor in the top companies in the world, making $40bn each every year. Please, <a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/"have a browse of the top 500 companies on the Fortune list and see how many of those you think earn their money from green industry, or how powerful that complex is.

That speech contains nothing new, nothing interesting I haven’t heard before again and again on a billion blogs that espouse the same paranoid conspiracy theories and logic disconnects, glossing over the realities of lively debate in favour of populist tones of conspiracy, freedom and harking back to the Cold War, which for some reason is the excuse de jour.

I said you need something other than paranoia. I didn’t mean you could use other people’s paranoia in place of it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 4:42pm
Chris C

# OECD rank 22 kiwi (2105)
December 6th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

Nick Griffin will be attending the Copenhagen climate conference and representing the European Parliament, as he sits on its environment committee.

A fun fact, the BNP is as popular in the UK as the Green party.

Fun fact, the BNP took 400,000 less votes than the Greens – a whole 2.5% lower, and only have the same amount of seats because the UK EU elections use the D’Hondt formula to calculate list seats. If they used St. Lague, the one they use in NZ, then the Greens would have four seats compared to the BNP’s two.

And I wouldn’t put too much stock in Nick being part of the delegation. The EU Parliament have little to no role in these talks except as an observer, so the idea that he’s going to rock the boat is a bit of a fantasy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 4:48pm
Hurf Durf

Very clever, EU. Have the only person who thinks AGW is a con also be a Holocaust denier. Nice association game there, EU. Very clever.

It’s almost as though as the EUians are a bunch of power-grabbing cunts. Oh wait, they are. PDF related: http://www.sera.org.uk/fileadmin/copenhagen_final.pdf
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 5:03pm
Hurf Durf

And in case anyone needs any clarification as to the cuntishness of the Warmists, behold.

The brainwashing is dying.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 5:15pm
Johnboy

Love that clip you supplied Chris C:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n8l6Gjws2s

Particularly the last sentence Bonnie said. Maybe you should send it to the Maori Party?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 5:27pm
getstaffed

However, the content is another paranoid, conspiracy-tinted, rant that could have been lifted straight from the comments section of Kiwiblog, or wherever else you find paranoid conspiracy theories that involve the global/intellectual/leftist/political elite, or references to Stalin or Mao, or suggestions that climate change is the left’s way of taking control of the globe, or whatever the fuck else you want to dream up in the same way that leftard cranks of the equivalence of Griffin – George Galloway, for example – blame the entire Iraq war on the procurement of oil.

Given that that’s a single sentence it probably qualifies as a rant.

IMO climate change is being used as a Trogan horse to promote global political, economic and social control. There are too many public domain documents and relevant quotes to cite in support of the objective.

In the ‘old days’ sovereignty was ceded by war and physical conquest. Today this process is altogether ‘smarter’ and less violent, but it is happening nevertheless. The UN, armed with its Charter 21, Commission on Global Governance (to name a few of its relevant structures) is capturing our sovereignty slowly, one freedom at a time. Think frogs in a pot and you’re close.

That so few global citizens are concerned about this is a travesty that our grandchildren will have trouble forgiving us for. But never mind, everything will be ok for me if I win Lotto next week.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 5:42pm
Hurf Durf

Stop Climate Chaos! But not littering, apparently…

Also, does someone want to tell me what this “climate justice” bollocks is about?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 5:56pm
Johnboy

“Also, does someone want to tell me what this “climate justice” bollocks is about?”

I suspect that it is a conjunction of “Climate Change” and “Social Justice” Hurf.

In other words when you have communism falling apart as it did so you get onto the climate change bandwagon and its wheels start falling off you quickly need a new cause to keep the comrades on board.

I rest my case!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 6:05pm
Hurf Durf

Marchers and their banners bellowed all manner of exhortation: “End domestic flights”, “Carbon cuts, not welfare cuts”, “To be cool, stop global warming”. One man, recycling a traffic cone into a megaphone, intoned, “Nuclear power is not the answer”.

…Afterwards, hundreds of hardy types set up camp in Trafalgar Square, declaring “we need system change, not climate change”. They found it hard to peg their tents down.

Any more proof needed as to their lunacy?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 6:21pm
Falafulu Fisi

Paradigm said…
Digressing to the actual climate models used for more predictive purposes, the emisivity as functions of wavelength are experimentally well known (incidentally most of the Earth’s surface is pretty close to a black body anyway in the IR region – I think sea water has emisivity of 0.9something there). So plugging the appropriate emisivity tends to legitimise that aspect of the actual models. I see no evidence that the blackbody is being misused.

Paradigm, I referred you yesterday to a couple of interesting papers, and I am sure that you had digested them. One paper pointed out a hole in our current physical understanding of black-body radiation theory & thermodynamics, which is the issue of microwave background radiation. You and me know, that once you have encountered a hole ie, an error or disagreement between theory and observation, then you must re-examine the premises of the theory itself.

Forget about talking emissivity first, because these physical parameters involve in thermodynamic processes that are being questioned whether they’re appropriately applied or not. You must question if the application of Black-body radiation’s theory to non-solids (gas state and atmosphere) is valid and that’s where you should argue first. Once you have put theoretical & observational considerations into its inappropriateness, then of course you can then talk about emissivities and stuff like that afterwards. Don’t try to jump ahead. See, if the use of black-body radiation is inappropriate to gaseous state (atmosphere), then you must question the so called Green-house? Think about it very carefully.

You & me both know that this is the case (historically in physics). You get reasonably good agreements between theories and observations in narrow domains only but failed in wider domain, eg, Rayleigh–Jeans law (perfect at low frequencies but useless at high range frequencies), Wien law (perfect at high frequencies but useless at low range frequencies), Bohr flat-plane mini-planetary solar system hydrogen atom model (perfect at describing single electron ions/atoms emission spectrum but useless in ions/atoms with multi-electrons, ie, 2 or more). When you have a physical theory that works in a narrow domain (such as those mentioned above, then you must of course become suspicious about the foundations their formulations). Bohr’s hydrogen atom was quite the obvious, since he assumed that an electron circles the hydrogen nucleus and interact with it, via newtonian mechanics. When his theory was tested against the emission spectrum of hydrogen, then voila/hallelujha , a perfect match had been observed. To the disappointment of Bohr and great scientists of those days, that this model completely failed when applied to Helium and atoms/ions with 2 electrons or more.

What was wrong here? Yep, the formulation was wrong footed right from the beginning. Bohr spent almost 10 years in trying to improve his model (of course with more complex derivation & formulas) hoping the more complex it was, then it would worked better, but still failed to account for spectrum of ions/atoms with 2 or more electron. He had to abandoned his work on this, when it was obvious that his work was fruitless (regardless how complex his derivations were). Bohr had a false hope, that with complex modification, would improve but that wasn’t the case . Of course, when you started with wrong or incomplete premises, you’re going to encounter many problems/holes down the line (ie, disagreements between theories & observations). Are’nt we seeing such arguments from warmists these days? Give us more millions of taxpayers money to buy powerful supercomputers, because our climate models are getting more complex, therefore we can only get better results. There is nothing wrong here, but more millions buying supercomputers produced little advance (Ok, they work well on this narrow domain but don’t generalize into a wider domain, which is what we currently seeing these days from IPCC climate oracles).

So we should learn from history here, and it is pointless to argue that we just attack the greenhouse or AGW theory for mere political reasons or some personal agendas. Here is what you should concentrate on, mere agreements between theories & observations doesn’t guarantee a 100% correspond to physical realities as Rayleigh–Jeans, Wien, Bohr and many in the past understood really well as they became suspicious about the universality of their respective theories. You can have a perfect agreements until you have encountered a hole or disagreement.

If the black-body radiation theory is inappropriately used for modeling gaseous materials (atmosphere), which appears to be the case here (yes by climatologists/physicsts) then of course you should start asking questions about the validly of greenhouse effect claim. See, the rotational kinetic energies of gas molecules have been brought up in the papers that I cited yesterday, which is something that black-body radiation theory doesn’t cover, since it should be applied only to solids and not atmosphere/gas.

Houston we have a problem

I said…
Note that the 2nd Law of thermo-dynamics can be violated (small time-scale) , but that is not applicable.

You replied…
In which case it is irrelevant, and not really worth bringing up at all.

I know that. I just brought it up here, since some commentators have argued the unbreakable of the laws of physics. So, it was just a passing comment.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 7:19pm
Johnboy

Bloody hell Falafulu Fisi very impressive. You are obviously not a fellah fulla shit.

I believe there may be a vacancy coming up at the University of East Anglia. You should apply.

God knows the world needs someone with a few clues to knock this AGW bullshit on the head.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 7:34pm
Hurf Durf

Would someone like to explain Shitday’s recent obsession with “Palestine?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 8:26pm
Fletch

bump
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 9:25pm
Banana Llama

Watch out Jhon Boy Chris C might come at you with a claw hammer.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 9:41pm
maxwell

If you were someone like Phil Jones from the Hadley CRU and you GENUINELY believed that “the science was settled” why would you refuse to release your taxpayer funded raw data, then delete/”lose” it when faced with FOI requests, denigrate sceptics, manipulate data using “tricks”, lean on editors of scientific publications to not publish papers from sceptics ,etc.etc., ?

If the raw data and computer codes were sound and your conclusions based upon it were irrefutable, wouldn’t you want to make it available to all scientists so that amelioration of AGW could start as soon as possible ? Actions speak louder than words. Maybe the science isn’t settled ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 11:05pm
RightNow

“If the new ethos is that “close-enough” science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agenda” DANIEL HENNINGER, Wall St Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848-lMyQjAxMDA5MDAwMzEwNDMyWj.html

“Many of we scientists have been ringing the alarm bells from the beginning on this… Climategate is no surprise at all to us.”
Christopher Essex (Professor and Associate Chair of the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario)
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/skeptics-in-wonderland
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 11:21pm
RightNow

“Among the points of interest in the unfolding climate scandal is the fact that the term “climategate” rapidly eclipsed global warming in the number of links produced by a simple Google search.

As is standard, Google’s auto-suggest function facilitated this, several days into the story’s evolution. Anyone typing in the letters c-l-i would see the suggested time-saving choice of climategate. Within a day or two of the auto-suggest function being added for “climategate” it had become the top item in the list.

Suddenly, though, on Monday December 1, Google stopped offering “climategate” as a choice to those who typed c-l-i and even to those who typed c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t. Strange.”
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/google-gate/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 11:24pm
Hurf Durf

This fucking treaty looks horrendous, even if it does fail:

Annex III, Section E, paragraph 17:

[[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response
measures.

Dignity? opportunities? Does demanding money add to their dignity? We gotta pay because we have WOUNDED THEIR FUCKING DIGNITY?

Annex 1, Section C, paragraph 41:

[Financial resources of the Convention Adaptation Fund”] [may] [shall] include: (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country parties]

0.7% of GDP, every year, turned over to the UN. Bigoted, racist and corrupt.

That’s a whole lot of moolah to be spent on buying patronage and clientele, isn’t it. How much exactly? Well, Australia has a GDP of 1 trillion dollars US. That’s seven billion dollars from po’ lil ole Oz alone. The UK? $2.6 trillion or 17 billion dollars in payments. The US? $14 trillion or 98 billion dollars.

Just from those three countries the UN gets $122 billion dollars to spend on all its favourite people.

Jesus tapdancing Christ.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2009 11:46pm
Guy Fawkes

NuLabour the party of Investment, have been forced to prepare for $40Billion of cuts.

The social engineering may have a wee problem going forwards. Elections in the UK can’t come quickly enough.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 1:51am
paradigm

Paradigm, I referred you yesterday to a couple of interesting papers, and I am sure that you had digested them. One paper pointed out a hole in our current physical understanding of black-body radiation theory & thermodynamics, which is the issue of microwave background radiation. You and me know, that once you have encountered a hole ie, an error or disagreement between theory and observation, then you must re-examine the premises of the theory itself.

The issue of background microwave radiation is a red herring for our purposes. While “interesting”, it is not relevant in the temperature range of interest (3K vs ~200-300K ) where the paper conceeds the current laws work.

The other paper is slightly more interesting, and mostly critical of the theoretical derivation of stefan boltzmann. I would argue degree of validity is restored to the boltzmann derivation thereof when being applied to a large number of open systems (but in ficticious boxes) in local equilibria with their neighbours. This is a common assumption in atmospheric physics.

So we should learn from history here, and it is pointless to argue that we just attack the greenhouse or AGW theory for mere political reasons or some personal agendas. Here is what you should concentrate on, mere agreements between theories & observations doesn’t guarantee a 100% correspond to physical realities as Rayleigh–Jeans, Wien, Bohr and many in the past understood really well as they became suspicious about the universality of their respective theories. You can have a perfect agreements until you have encountered a hole or disagreement.

However the quantum mechanics which was being developed at the time in order to combat the failures in the said Rutherford and Bohr models of the atom need not be applied to working out the speed of my car. Classical mechanics works well enough for that. By the same token just because a law may not hold near 0 K, doesn’t mean we need to use a more advanced formalism when applied to 300K when the simpler form will suffice.

If the black-body radiation theory is inappropriately used for modeling gaseous materials (atmosphere), which appears to be the case here (yes by climatologists/physicsts) then of course you should start asking questions about the validly of greenhouse effect claim.

I think you must also be careful in how you present those papers: earlier you spoke of lack of agreement between experiment and theory. Yet both papers largely lack experimental evidence that the current laws are not applicable. They are primarily pointing out that more work needs to be done on the theoretical derivations, and more experiments need to be carried out at low temperature. They principally state that it would be nicer to have a firmer theoretical justification for the law, not that the law is wrong. Now Stefan Boltzmann (with an appropriate frequency dependent emisivity) accurately reproduces and predicts experimental results within the relevant temperature range. For the purposes of validating the models, that is all you need.

See, the rotational kinetic energies of gas molecules have been brought up in the papers that I cited yesterday, which is something that black-body radiation theory doesn’t cover, since it should be applied only to solids and not atmosphere/gas.

Actually blackbody doesn’t care about any of that. All it does in its derivation is assume a photon gas is in the box and in equilibrium with whats in the box. The means to how this exchanges energy with the massive content in the box (translation, rotation and vibration for gases vs largely just vibration for solids) is not particularly relevant.

I just brought it up here, since some commentators have argued the unbreakable of the laws of physics. So, it was just a passing comment.

Actually it is more of an incorrect application of the law than a failure of the law: not completely disimilar to how the original authors tried to use the second law to the disprove greenhouse effect.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 4:21am
paradigm

@#$% edit timer:
(For wrong in my fourth papargaph, substitute “in disagreement with experimental observations”)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 4:26am
Falafulu Fisi

Paradigm, continue on the general debate here
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 4:37pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Blog Bits from the Left

Tamihere on Goff »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

#ANZAC: "year after year, the numbers grow fewer, who remember what we're not forgetting"
Not PC
We will remember them
Breaking Views
"Comity" versus the rule of law
No Right Turn
“Known unto God”
Hompaddock
Memory
No Minister
ANZAC Day 2024 – A new Red Sea War and Winston selling our independent foreign policy for 3 magic beans from the American Military Industrial Complex! What are we commemorating?
The Daily Blog
Open mike 25/04/2024
The Standard
5 Best Chess Opening Traps in the French Defense
Utopia
At a time of media turmoil, Melissa had nothing to proclaim as Minister – and now she has been demoted
Point of Order
Jacinda’s legacy – Increasing number of abortions
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
REEFTON – THE NEW PARIS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 15
Stats Chat
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d