This entry was posted
on Monday, December 7th, 2009 at 8:00 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.
Interesting press release from IRD about its “High Wealth Unit”:
The actions of the IRD High Wealth Individuals Unit (HWIU) recovered an additional NZ$81 million in tax revenue, for the year ending June 30th, 2009.
Initiated in 2003, the HWIU investigates those who own or are in the control of wealth in excess of NZ$50 million. Currently an estimated 250 such individuals in New Zealand.
During the year ending June 30th, 2009, the HWIU selected 161 individuals on who to carry out investigations. These resulted in NZ$81 million in tax revenue, NZ$53 million worth cases that are still in progress, and a further dispute surrounding an extra NZ$178 million.
Since the HWIU’s inception in 2003, investigations by the unit have led to an additional NZ$300 million being paid in taxes by high wealth individuals.
That’s a shitload of tax owed (by so few) that would have otherwise gone unpaid. Actually thought we’d have more than than number of wealthy.
No Chris, I’m not surprised there are not more. $50mil is a pretty high hurdle. I know plenty of dairy farmers who are milking say 700 cows – that’s a substantial business turning over close to $0.5mil but their asset value generally will be around $15m to $20mil depending on locality.
I expect there will be quite a large number in the 30 to 50 mil range.
However, you are right. That’s a shit load of tax. I must say some of the most successful business people with whom I’ve been associated do not make huge effort to reduce tax. They figure their energies are more productively aimed at making money rather than avoiding taxes.
John Boscawen, ACT’s spokesperson on Climate Change, invites you to a Public Meeting to discuss the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Guest speaker will be Richard Treadgold, convenor of the Climate Conversation Group. Richard collated the paper “Are We Feeling Warmer Yet?” from a combined research project of the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Come and find out:
- Why the ETS will see many low and middle income families struggle
- Why many feel the scientific consensus is crumbling and dispute the fact that the science is settled
- Why it will be more difficult for our export businesses and farmers to compete
- Why ACT’s offer to support National in delaying Labour’s ETS was ignored
Where: Royal Akarana Yacht Club, 10 Tamaki Drive, Okahu Bay, Auckland
Yes XChequer, I’m on $65 mill but I still take time out of my busy day to slum it here with you guys.
You aware that profiling is a concept that actually means targeting a group on the basis of prdetermined parameters not just groups that one beliongs to? Or is it ok to target the groups you don’t like, or in this case envy?
And its not “a shit laod of tax”. Its a shitload of money that IRD is claiming. There is a world pf difference between what IRD claims and the reality once their interpretations have been tested in court.
Or should just take all governments departments word for it when they tell us something?
I read of a change of heart by world leaders towards copenhagen. I know this does not mean that you have all decided that AGW is Bullshit. I know this means you are all getting excited at the thought of taxing your citizens even further. Mr Key, please remember something before you enter the room and drop your pants for the circle jerk. This is not just about the future of the world, which whether you believe gore et al or not, will still be here. maybe covered in hockey sticks and man bear pig, probably not though. The impact of what you do at copenhagen will live with us for years. we can kiss goodbye a pay rate as high as australia’s in 2025, and say hello to honduras’s. I know you don’t care, or even pretend too. this is a media op for you, and a bloody good one. To me it means everything, and I will not be voting national again should you ratify anything without asking the people of New Zealand first. Don’t forget, we voted the last government out becuase they tried to tell us all the time what is good for us. And like all governments, didn’t know anything.
” However, you are right. That’s a shit load of tax.”
It actually should be a crime to harass people in this manner, and another sign that in terms of respect for traditional freedoms, this country is a stinking soviet cesspit.
Its not as if the $80 million is put to any good. Used to pay dole bludgers, overpaid civil servants or to bribe racist politicians, or to send do gooding loafers on world trips.
What a lame population to not only put up with but applaud such treatment of its citizens.
The story is bullshit, it reads as though the unit managed to bring in an extra 81 million whereas in fact they will be including all the tax paid by this group, not just any extra they managed to squeeze out.
Spin.
The saddest stat in that release is “those who own or are in the control of wealth in excess of NZ$50 million. Currently an estimated 250 such individuals in New Zealand.”
Great to hear the news about the cradle of Christmas ,Adagio. I am always very suspicious of positive reviews of big city dramatic affairs. A rave comment usually means that it is far removed from “ordinary” New Zealanders.
To hear news that the “f” word was to the fore as well as sexual innuendo, then see that free entry had been offered to under 10 year olds from CYF. Sounds par for the course for some of the idiots that claim themselves to be purveyors of the truth.People outside the elitist fringe cringe when they hear this message.
To hear the mealy mouthed comments from Ms Heaton, director of that great purveyor of elitism Downstage, saying that removing sexual innuendo and the profanities would be condascending to children.
The use of profanity is in the hands of individuals, I totally agree with this. However, do we expect young people to be exposed to that language and concepts that are not child like. Let our kids enjoy Christmas for its aspect of family,kindness and love for one another.Christmas is a time for building respect not using it as a means to extend political ideas.
Why insert unpleasantness into this season.
Do some thinking those people who try to use culture as a means of damaging our fabric of cociety, our kids !!
[DPF: I suggest you watch it before you make a fool of yourself. It is totally safe for children, and very sweet.]
I have watched a few Christmas plays and to me they were sanitised and bland, something one had to sit through once a year with little chance of entertainment. My kids still laugh about wearing tea towels on their heads. They were usually shepherds in the background because they weren’t very high up the JC PC pecking order.
Adagio sounds like it is something that would be actually entertaining for kids. Christ, it’s not like they are totally closeted from the odd swear word and the occasional bit of sensualness.
Michelle Bachmann, is a housewife and mother who dares to advocate limited government, free markets and traditional marriage.
One day, fed up with the lack of resistance to Progressivism, she put on her coat and went out to a political meeting. Today, thanks to plain talking and truth, and advocacy for traditional values, she tops (with Sarah Palin) the left’s hit list in the US-
Tomorrow 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.
Incredible, co-ordinated desperation from the MSM who need alarmist stories to support their flagging advertising revenues. I’ll let others pick apart the untruths in their rant. There are plenty.
“Incredible, co-ordinated desperation from the MSM who need alarmist stories to support their flagging advertising revenues.”
Corrupt liars and propagandists who should one day swing from the lamp posts along with the stinking academic charlatans and deceiving power obsessed politicians they toady to.
Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation
I did see that Getstaffed – indeed I did.
And the headline is accurate but not in the way the writer intended.
The real question is are we going to resile from Popperian Science by replacing searchers for enlightenment with an army of technocrats producing public relations documents to support the agendas of the ruling elites rather than furthering understanding of the world we inhabit.
I cannot believe that just as a well-funded campaign aginst crate farming of pork is getting underway a bunch of greedy corporate farmers want to battery farm dairy cows in the McKenzie country. The arrogance of the dairy industry is getting out of hand. Already, they regard our nation’s rivers and streams as their God given sewers for their industrial strength run-off of cow shit and piss. The Mckenzie country is a fragile, arid and tussock environment. The only reason you would battery farm cows there is so you would have sufficient space to spray raw, untreated sewage all over the place in an orgy of industrial diarrohea on the beautiful scenery there.
I am no vegetarian tree hugger, but any establishment of this style of unsustainable, immoral and cruel factory “farming” in New Zealand would see me going out of way to make sure I would take part in the inevitable call for an international boycott of our dairy industry.
Our “brand” (100% pure? Take a swim in the Manawatu river, if you dare) is already under attack. The simple, decent ethics of our behaviour to animals in our care would demand nothing less than a major boycott campaign, even if dairy is the centre piece export earner and as such an industry unused to hearing the word “no”.
“One day, fed up with the lack of resistance to Progressivism, she put on her coat and went out to a political meeting. Today, thanks to plain talking and truth, and advocacy for traditional values, she tops (with Sarah Palin) the left’s hit list in the US-”
Bachmann is a raving loon who – like Redbaiter and his hero Sarah Palin – thinks Obama may not be a U.S. citizen. The crazy is running overtime in the Republican Party at the moment.
but any establishment of this style of unsustainable, immoral and cruel factory “farming” in New Zealand would see me going out of way to make sure I would take part in the inevitable call for an international boycott of our dairy industry.
Chill Tom – the sad reality is that if this establishment is built and properly managed the cows therein will enjoy a higher quality of life than a substantial proportion of humanity does today, some of them living in our own “clean green” country.
“This cannot pass,” the Minnesota Republican told a crowd at a Denver gathering sponsored by the Independence Institute. “What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.”
Cut costs – probably, for the corporate bottom lines.
Environmentally friendly – debatable, especially if cows are considered part of the environment
Would not tarnish NZ’s reputation – that’s a big call and a huge risk
Federated Farmers said “so-called factory farming” cut costs,
Weird how Nicholson talks of ‘cutting costs’ just when Eric Watson and co are setting up the ‘more efficient model’ of grass fed operations in the US. Also presumably if this was cheaper than the normal NZ way of doing things presumably someone would’ve set something like this up decades ago.
Only the left could be guilty of the cowardice, spite and irrationality of smearing a good and decent woman as a loon because she does not buy into the insanity of the Progressives.
from the story getstaffed linked to @ 10.03am “11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record”
Oh yeah? I was under the impression that global temperatures peaked in 1998, and have since trended downwards – hence the shift in terminology from”Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. And it would seem that the only thing that has been “feeble and half-hearted” has been the MSM’s reporting of the fudged climate data used to advance what is at best a theory.
Only the left could be guilty of the cowardice, spite and irrationality of smearing a good and decent woman as a loon because she does not buy into the insanity of the Progressives.
It’s you that suggested the loon idea. Perhaps they think she is perfectly sane but they just don’t like her policies. US politics revels in the smear attack and it comes from both sides. Look at all the stuff put about Obama (he was sworn on the Koran, he’s a Muslim sleeper, he’s not really a Christian etc).
I was under the impression that global temperatures peaked in 1998, and have since trended downwards
You might have to widen your research. 1998 was an unusually high peak, but since then the trend lines have held high. There is little scientific doubt the temperatures have increased (based on three separate data sets, CRU being one, plus many independent observations). The biggest question mark is whether the temperatures plateaued, or is something else counteracting the warming trend at the moment.
Flush off of the upset Democratic victory in NY-23, which he had a big hand in, Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who is Jewish, is demanding that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) apologize for sponsoring Thursday’s anti-health care reform rally, which brought to the hill signs comparing health reform to the Holocaust.
“I just cannot believe that Congresswoman Bachmann sponsored and brought to the American people, the use of images from the Holocaust, actual photographs of skeletal remains of people from the cremetoria, in order to make a point about the health insurance bill,” says Israel. “I can’t believe that Congresswoman Bachmann would stand where she stood and see those images and not have the common decency to say, ‘I disagree with the use of those images.’”
Easy, Tiger. When you get all shitty, it just makes your arguments look weak.
I was responding to your comment “If she was as much of a loon as the commies claim, why would they perceive her as such a threat?”, where you’re clearly making the statement that commies do indeed claim she’s a loon.
Weird how Nicholson talks of ‘cutting costs’ just when Eric Watson and co are setting up the ‘more efficient model’ of grass fed operations in the US.
The problem is there is very little grass in the Mackenzie country without intensive irrigation. They probably think it’s cheaper to build huge barns and truck in feed from elsewhere. That could have a big impact elsewhere if they buy large quantities of stock feed, it could force up prices and make sheep farming more uneconomic. Unless they are thinking of palm kernel. That would really enhance our agricultural and carbon reputation.
Typical commie. They love to draw the argument off the main point into peripheal side issues where they feel they can win. Go away Malcom. You’re a mincing bore.
When are you commies going to awaken to the fact that your arrogant pronouncements on whether someone is a dick or a loon are of no interest to the large number of people who despise and reject your ideology?
As for the “commies”, I do not subscribe to the propaganda that this is an outmoded term, and I will use it deliberately whenever I see fit. (being most times I need to describe the lelft in NZ)
The churches are onto the climate bandwagon this week too.On Sunday next lots of bellringing.The Beeb and others are really excited that 192 countries will be represented at Copenhagen ,the real issue is how many of these countries allow their citizens any representation at all.
I’m not aware of anyone who thinks GG is big on logic, let alone economics, but it’s funny watching two geriatric fundamentalists (in their different fields) having a bit of a set to when they should be arguing about whose turn it is to send down that little white ball.
You’re here with the despicable COMMIE coward Radar and the contemptible COMMIE smearer Joe90.
A man is judged by the company he keeps.
And if you don’t want to be told to fuck off, maybe you should be a bit more accurate with your allegations.
“it just makes your argument look weak”
And why can’t you get the damn point?? I don’t give a flying fuck how I may “look” to you and your ilk. In fact the more disregard you have the happier I am. I’m not into appeasement or currying the favour of the politically correct. People I despise. Never have been, never will be.
Having donated to Michelle Bachmann’s ’08 re-election campaign myself . . .
Congresswoman Bachmann is a graduate of Anoka High School and Winona State University. After earning her law degree, she went on to the College of William and Mary to get an LLM in tax law. Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, live in Stillwater where they own a small business mental health care practice that employs 42 people. The Bachmanns have five children, Lucas, Harrison, Elisa, Caroline, and Sophia. In addition, the Bachmanns have opened their home to 23 foster children, which has inspired Congresswoman Bachmann to become one of Congress’ leading advocates for foster and adopted children. She was recently honored with an appointment to the bipartisan Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute’s Advisory Board.
Maybe those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, Palin Palsy or the Blackburn Blight could consult her about possible treatment options at her practice ?
You’re here with the despicable COMMIE coward Radar and the contemptible COMMIE smearer Joe90.
A man is judged by the company he keeps.
Classic. A man is judged by the anonymous posters who happen to be posting on a website at the same time on vaguely the same topics? It’s a funny little world you live in, Redbaiter.
If it’s ok with you, I’d rather not be held accountable for what other people post on this blog. It’s just so difficult getting them to write exactly what I want. Still, if it helps you to lump together and label as a ‘commie’ or ‘progressive’, everyone who doesn’t agree 100% with everything you say, then by all means carry on. I’m sure you will.
Remember though, when you get all shitty and tell someone to fuck off, it just makes your argument look weak. Even if you call them a commie while you’re doing it.
“Michele Bachmann” has a Media Interest Index (MII*) of 0.61
“Climategate” has a Media Interest Index of 0.22
“Copenhagen Summit” has a Media Interest Index of 5.96
*The MMI (Media Interest Index) is then 1,000 times the number of news matches divided by the number of web matches. The result is 1 for equal interest between the media and the public. A value of 2 would mean the news media are “twice” as interested as the public. A value of 0.5 would mean that the media are only half as interested as the public. Hat tip: Dr Roy Spencer
That’s another pointless poll. What about:
“Is climate change partly human induced?”
“Should we try do anything about climate change?”
I’d answer No, and No.. but you know that.
How about this question:
“Should our government agree to a binding international treaty, which will cost our country billions, while the science on which the treaty is based is as best unproven, at worst discredited?”
The left (and others) predicted that Abbot’s win over the turncoat Turnbull would bring political ruin upon the Liberal Party-
From the Australian-
“But what was most interesting at the weekend was where the big swings to Abbott came from.
At the 2007 election the Chadstone booth, right near the iconic shopping centre so reviled by Deveny, was lost by the Liberals with a two party preferred vote of 49.95 per cent.
Yesterday the Liberals won it with a two party preferred (TPP) vote of 56.83 per cent, a swing of nearly 7 per cent.
And it wasn’t just Chadstone. Many areas of Higgins that were Labor territory at the last election swung to Abbott and Kelly O’Dwyer. At the Alamein booth, in the more working-class area of the electorate, the Liberals easily lost the booth in 2007 with a TPP of 41.05 per cent but that transformed into 52.32 per cent on Saturday, a swing to the Liberals of just over 11 per cent.
Nearby, the Ashburton booth recorded a Liberal TPP of 51.36 per cent in 2007 and a TPP of 54.07 per cent yesterday, a swing of nearly 3 per cent.
Carnegie North booth had a Liberal TPP of 56.42 per cent in 2007. Saturday the TPP was 59.98 per cent, another 3 per cent swing to the Liberals. Carnegie Upper, which was the Liberals worst booth in 2007 with a TPP of just 39.33 per cent in 2007, had a swing to Kelly of more than 5 per cent to 44.29 per cent.
The Murrumbeena booth, also lost by the Liberals in 2007 with a TPP of 46.37 per cent, was won by the Liberals with a TPP of 50.93 per cent, a swing of 4.5 per cent.
These results were mirrored in Bradfield, particularly in the northern area of the electorate around Hornsby, a suburb in which the centrelink queues are long and which, horrors, has a shopping centre much like the one in Chadstone.
At Hornsby Central, Hornsby East and Hornsby Hospital booths the TPP swings to the Liberal’s Paul Fletcher were between 5 and 13 per cent.
In Chatswood West, where from the top of the many apartment blocks you could probably glimpse Kirribilli House in the hazed distance, the swing to Abbott and Fletcher was 6.8 per cent.”
I see the climate change deniers are out in force peddling their mischievous snake-oil again, with their usual distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies.
An extract from this article by Johann Hari in The Independent:
A study for the journal Science randomly sampled 928 published peer-reviewed scientific papers that used the words “climate change”. It found that 100 per cent – every single one – agreed it is being fuelled by human activity. There is no debate among climate scientists. There are a few scientists who don’t conduct research into the climate who disagree, but going to them to find out how global warming works is a bit like going to a chiropodist and asking her to look at your ears.
Here’s another hockey stick – not a Mann or a proxy, actual real measurements: the full article here.
It shows that the temperatures above 12,000 ft are warmer now than at anytime in the last 3500 years and the last 1000 years look uncannily like the Mann Hockey Stick. Just another nail in the coffin for the deniers.
Mathew Hooten made a tool of himself this morning on climate change, reverting to his natural state of downright ignorance, and talking about swimming with the sharks. In fact, though, projections are firming up for a 2m sea rise by the end of this century that will affect many major cities containing around one billion people, not to mention low lying islands and mafor delatsaaaa and rises of many more meters under the “Business as Usual” scenario favoured by the deniers. Such rapid changes have occurred previously in the paleo-history of the planet, accompanied by widespread extinctions of species.
I wonder if part of the problem of getting the truth of climate change and the possibly catastrophic consequences for humans and many other species to be accepted outside the scientific community is that first, most of today’s adults won’t be around as the sea laps up to our doors, and that it’s just too much to grasp?
What was it that the fake scientists behind the emails received in grants? Something like $12 million, or was it $20 million? No wonder they wanted so desperately to keep the scam alive.
Gosh Luc, a Hockey stick eh? Interesting to see that you’ve abandoned the Fraud of Mann. With you gone he can’t have many supporters left.
re your pnas link, I fail to see how generic tree-ring analysis can be switched into the Climate Change debate, particularly when they note under the heading Climate Factors, that “No climatic trends are apparent that might explain the positive trends in tree growth….” (p. 1019).
If you want some more hockey stick shaped things I’ll send you some NASDAQ charts, and you can work on claiming they proof positive of AGW.
Meantime go easy on the suggestion that everone else is full of lies. It just makes you look stupid.
Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges
Back in 1885 it cost 2 cents to post a letter. Who would have thought that as postal charges climbed by 40 cents through the next 120 years, that global temperatures would mirror that rise in timing and slope and gain almost one full degree?
Ominously, US Post is set to raise the charges 2c to 44c on May 11, 2009. Postal Action Network (PAN) has already sprung into existence this afternoon and plans to produce a boycott campaign of the new 44c Homer Simpson stamps. Overworked postal workers are enthusiastic. Homer Simpson is reported to have said “Give me the number for 911.”
Barbara Boxer, majority Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, immediately set up an inquiry, announcing that all future changes in price for US post must be approved by the EPA. “We’ll need a full environmental impact statement. We can’t just let global damage be done willy nilly on the basis of some arbitrary postal expenses committee’s need to balance the books. No other government service has to balance their budget, why should US Post?”
President Obama immediately convened a task force at the Federal Reserve to loan $450 billion to US Post to keep prices constant until 3400 A.D..
Tuvalu promptly announced they would cut their postal charges in half ‘just in case’. They are asking for donations in order to keep their postal service running, but are considering shifting to carrier pigeons.
The mechanism is far from clear. Professor Chrichton-Boots from the Chicago Schools of Economics, cautioned that US Post prices are a good proxy for inflation, and that it may be inflation that is really behind the recent change in climate. He admitted it was puzzling that there appears to have been global temperature changes for 3-5 billion years before the advent of either US Postal services, or inflation. “You would think the planetary climate would have been stable.” But Harvard social researchers are calling for funding for archaeological digs to find postage stamps from the precambrian. “It’s under-researched”. US Post said this type of finding would be very important but, if any stamps were found, they would be unable to honor them: “Since at the time, the US didn’t exist, in government, in theory, or even as a landmass”.
A spokesman from US Post pointed out that the ‘Forever’ series of stamps (which cost 41c, but are ‘good forever, regardless of price rises’) are anti-inflationary. They were issued in 2007 which “may explain the cooler weather since then”*.
Critics pointed out that correlation is not causation, and “you can produce a link between any two monotonically rising lines on a graph”. The newly formed UN Intergovernmental Panel on Postal Changes called them deniers, while Jim Hansen from NASA pronounced that executives from The Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service should be jailed henceforth and also retrospectively.
The Russians (Pochta Rossii) announced they would lift the cost of letters from 10 roubles to 100, effective from Monday. “Siberia is too cold”.
It’s hilarious to see the climategate rebuttal spin increasing in desperation each day. The latest claim is another attempt to conjure up scary old bogeymen is that the Russians and ‘Big Oil’ are responsible, with the Times screaming Climategate: was Russian secret service behind email hacking plot?.
So-called ‘patriot hackers’ from Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service, the FSB, to attack websites disliked by the Kremlin, such as the “denial of service” campaign launched against the Kavkaz-Tsentr website, over its reports about the war in Chechnya, in 2002. Russia, a major oil exporter, may be trying to undermine calls to reduce carbon emissions ahead of the Copenhagen Summit on global warming.
Of course this is all rubbish. Yes the CRU data was originally made public from a Russian server but hardly implicates the FSB. Nope, it’s a truth seeker buried in CRU who is responsible for all this. This mole was dubbed “Deep Cool” way back in July – months before the CRU data found it’s way into the public domain.
27-Jul-2009. As some WUWT readers may have learned from reading Climate Audit, an anonymous source deep within Hadley CRU has provided Steve McIntyre a copy of a data file he has been seeking but has had his FOI requests to Hadley seeking the same file, rebuked.
Interesting to see that you’ve abandoned the Fraud of Mann. Far from it getstaffed and that is exactly one of the lies I am talking bout.
How about this question:
“Should our government agree to a binding international treaty, which will cost our country billions, while the science on which the treaty is based is as best unproven, at worst discredited?”
As is the above. you can argue credibly as to the efficacy of ETS, as does james Hansen, but the science is proven and virtually unanimous amongst climatologists – but I dare say you will find a pet renegade.
The Met Office said it was publishing a subset of the full HadCRUT record of global temperatures — that’s one of a handful of global temperature data sets that underpin the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Mitchell told CNN that he didn’t see “any issue whatsoever with the soundness of global mean temperature records.
“If you look at the land data, the sea surface data temperatures and mean air temperature data, those three records independently show a 0.7 degree warming trend over the past 100 years.”
Mitchell added: “We also know that NASA have data sets that show pretty much the same trend over the past 100 years and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) also have a data set.”
Pete – anything from the CRU is about as credible as Weatherston’s defence lawyer.
If other sources suggest a warming trend without needing to falsify data, hide/delete data and methodology, and stack peer-review processes, then I’ll look with an open mind.
Pete, NASA is being sued as they will not release data they have complied over the years concerning the climate. Data has been requested under the FOIA (usa) for the last two years, NASA will not release their findings, now why do you think this would be so?. NASA and the CRU are blood brothers hellbent on their own self preservation, all that nice money gone if they come up with the wrong answer.
KiwiGreg – I agree. This is desperate, coordinated propaganda from the worlds MSM. They must not have their biggest seller, AGW alarmism, put to the sword of truth and sunlight.
“Not shitting myself at all, reddiebaby. Pissing myself laughing at how anyone can see Palin, Bachmann, taitz, et al as serious players.”
Well you’re even more dull and stupid than I thought jackboot, as all one needs to do is read the link in my post of 9:55am to see how much fear she inspires in the left, and how much they’re willing to spend to keep her out of politics.
Laughing??
Just one more obvious leftist lie.
You’re shitting your pants you disgusting little totalitarian weasel and coward.
jesusonacross, redbaiter, you’re really losing the plot.
I see you don’t try to refute any of the claims in joe90′s reference.
I loved the one where she was held hostage by lesbians. almost as the one where god picked her husband for her and then they prayed and fasted, thus inducing a delusional state, before she decided she had to be America’s saviour. Prolly ’cause ole JC ain’t comin back anytime soon now, ya hear.
Redtiger, you are a bit like a well known golfer, some obvious talent but let down an over eagerness to chase after women of very questionable motives.
Sorry getstaffed – didnt realise you were well ahead of me – sometimes a little bit hard to get to the meat of General Debate when the kids are playing a bit loudly in the sandbox.
If everyone who says Barack Obama needs to prove his elegibility for the role of POTUS is crazy, why doesn’t he just produce the Birth Certificate and show them all to be the nuts you say they are, rather than pay his favourite left wing lawyer around $US1.8 million (to date) keeping all details of his past under wraps??
????????????
Only the brain damaged left could be so wantonly hypocritical and not feel any shame in protecting this fraud, as they are the very scum who demanded McCain’s birth certificate and subpoenaed George Bush’s dental records.
Hurf- have a look at this for how hopelessly contaminated the mainstream media are. Its exaggerations and alarmism are historical, except that today, its much more evil because the whole damn fraud is inspired by the Progressive political movement.
Paradigm said… 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.
No, you simply revert to the comfort of falling back on the notion that if it applies in this domain then that’s all we need. Physics is search for universality. It is about universal laws first & foremost. Applicability then comes out of universality as a result. If it is about specificity (ie, valid in only certain domain as you made out above), then certainly, there wouldn’t have been new theories being proposed as we’ve witnessed over the last 100 years or so. New theories were proposed, not because physicists just simply wanted to have fun with formulas. The need for developing them was prompted when they encountered some disagreements/holes (ie, theories & observations).
Paradigm said… 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.
You have assumptions and that’s good, because that’s what physics is supposed to be, but you must modify the model (or its premises) if you have encountered a problem or if the model is too narrow in its domain of application. Physics has been like this for the last 300 years or so.
Paradigm said… 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.
You completely missed the point of the argument. It is about finding our and establishing of physical reality. Approximation is a different issue altogether. If we’re analyzing the hydrogen atom spectrum, then it doesn’t matter if one uses Bohr model or quantum mechanics, because they give the same results. If one, is trying to establish reality, then Bohr model is false, meaning that reality has got nothing to do with it, although it still gives correct prediction of the emission spectrum observation. If it is (Bohr model) to be treated as reality, then everything in the universe (objects) will be flat , a flat human, a flat car, a flat tennis ball , a flat tree, and so forth. In reality, objects in the universe are not flat but have volume (because atoms and their electrons are spherical that give rise to 3D volumetric objects – since electrons don’t arrange themselves in a flat plane mini-planetary solar system around the nucleus), and that’s an undeniable fact.
So, you should think about physical reality and universality, because that’s what physics should be about. Sure , approximation works well for us in one domain where we don’t need to worry about universality , and a good example is Newtonian mechanics, but when you try to establish reality (associated with universality), then it is a different ball-game altogether. The debate about the validity of the IPCC climate models is whether man is the culprit or not. That’s the reality that is in disputes today. I’ll give you an example. Tell me, if the consensus on the double slit experiment is the true picture of reality, ie, you can be at 2 places at once. Watch this YouTube animation.
Quantum Mechanics give reasonably accurate prediction of most physical observables that we encounter today, but the question to ask about the double-slit experiment, is : Does this consensus amongst physicists about wave-function collapse (or be at 2 places at once) represent true physical reality? Well, philosophically, it would be a NO, because it is absurd. Experimentally/Theoretically, it is a YES. Go back to the Bohr Model example. Theory & experiment agreed, but reality (we see a 3D world) and theory (which proposed 2D flat-plane atom) disagreed.
Feynman once said, that if one can come up with a theory that explained the double-slit-experiment (epitome of quantum mechanics – QM) in a local & causal manner, then that theory should replace QM and so far, other competing theories haven’t managed to do that in a consistent manner. The double-slit has been observed/replicated with larger object as well in atom-laser & Bose-Einstein condensate super-atoms (tens of thousands of molecules or even more than that), so definitely what we’re seeing/observing are undeniable facts. The question to ask is, if objects can be truly be at 2 places at once or if there is some reality that we don’t know about yet. That’s the important question, because QM may be giving us correct observations (similar to Bohr Model), but reality itself may not be behaving that objects can be located at 2 places at once (wave-function collapse).
May be we should just adopt a Feynman, just shut-up and calculate mentality, ie, we only worry about the predictive accuracy of the theory rather than worrying about its underlying physical reality. This works well in QM, but that shouldn’t be applied to IPCC climate models. We need to find the reality. Is it man or is it natural?
Paradigm said… I think you must also be careful in how you present those papers: earlier you spoke of lack of agreement between experiment and theory.
You may have interpreted it that way, when I spoke of universality, which is different. A theory can have perfect agreement with observations in a certain domain, but disagreed on another domain, that’s when we questioned its universality. Near universal theories are more trustworthy than ones that don’t and our current climate models are not known to be consistent (or exhibit near universality).
Paradigm said… 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.
Again, our friend Bohr Model keeps popping up again and again. If one encounters a hole, then he should re-examine the premises that went into the formulation of the theory, not because the observation/theoretical prediction disagree or wrong, but the formulation itself (premises) is wrong, because it made unrealistic assumptions of the nature of reality, and that’s the whole point that other scientists are skeptical about man-caused global warming. Wrong law is different from wrong premises.
Paradigm said… 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.
I suggest that you dig a little bit more (hint, find the cited papers that are referenced at the end of those 2 papers that I linked to , from the other thread). Most of them are available online.
Meanwhile, I had a chuckle Sunday morning when I heard an interview with a winemaker in the West Bank, OPT. He was complaining mainly about the EU removing tariff-free access to their markets for Israeli products sourced from the occupied territories – his case, wine from grapes grown on stolen land.
What made me laugh is that he complained it was anti-Semitic because it was only because he was a Jew. But the fact is the reason for removal of preferential access was not because of his ethnicity (Eastern European, by the sounds of his accent) or religion, but his citizenry.
Put simply, Mr Winemaker, you are an illegal colonist in an occupied land, and the occupier is the country you are a citizen of – Israel. That’s it, pure and simple: a matter of international law, nothing else.
The winemaker tried to make a virtue of employing Palestinian workers, but you can’t logically militarily occupy land, dispossess the locals, squeeze them into bantustans, then say it’s OK to exploit all that by throwing the occupied people some crumbs.
It’s heartening to see the small but progressive steps towards intensifying the BDS campaign aimed at ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territories.
Figures that the EU is on the side of the Islamists. The foreign commissioner is a Communist, after all, and they are terrified of the Youths of Undeterminate Origin lurking in Londonistan, Paristan and Berlinabad.
Remember, folks: buy Israeli, tell the anti-Western set where to stick it.
WASHINGTON–The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.
Such an “endangerment” decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.
The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.
Let me interpret a little further. Every time you breathe out you will be creating a Public Danger. Absolute madness. When Maurice Strong, the founder of the UN Environment Programme said this …
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
… perhaps classifying the very process of breathing as one of creating danger was what he imagined to get the [wrecking] ball rolling.
Ms Hansen said… It found that 100 per cent – every single one – agreed it is being fuelled by human activity.
That claim is akin to the consensus on the double-slit-experiment (see the youtube animation, I linked to above) from my previous message.
Have you watched the double-slit-experiment animation that I linked to above? The consensus (amongst physicists) is that objects (size is irrelevant) can be at 2 places at once? I recommend that you watch it. Physical reality is not decided/constructed by what humans think of it. It is objectively existed independent of us humans, and that’s a fact.
Ms Hansen said…
There is no debate among climate scientists. There are a few scientists who don’t conduct research into the climate who disagree, but going to them to find out how global warming works is a bit like going to a chiropodist and asking her to look at your ears.
Irrelevant argument. Many great Nobel Laureate theoretical physicists who produced/invented/developed ground-breaking theories were theorists and they themselves had never set foot in a laboratory, but their minds roamed around the universe, such as Einstein, Feynman, Heisenberg, etc,… These were great theorists who produced theories so those can guide experimentalists in their search for reality. Experimentalists need a theory to guide them instead of aimlessly & randomly looking for physical laws that describe the universe, which are quite well-hidden.
Do you believe that consensus or not? Does the nature of physical reality depend on consensus or it is supposed to be objectively independent of us (humans)?
Ms Hansen said… It shows that the temperatures above 12,000 ft are warmer now than at anytime in the last 3500 years and the last 1000 years look uncannily like the Mann Hockey Stick. Just another nail in the coffin for the deniers.
Ms Hansen, did you know that Hockey Stick is a statistical test and not a physics model ? Do you know the difference or not?
Falafulufisi, I think you need to be careful not to blur two distinct points:
-whether the current theory is desirable in that it may be applied universally
-whether the current theory may be legitimately used to extract useful information in a particular set of circumstances
A failure of the first point does not break climate change models, you need to fail on the second point in order to do that. Indeed were we that hung up on the need for universal applicability of laws, we’d have to bin quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity, as they are mutually exclusive. However we don’t and instead make useful predictions from both.
My example of the lack of need to apply QM to a car was perfectly valid and quite illustrative in this regard: QM reduces to CM (classical mechanics) in the large body limit, so predictions made by CM are still valid. Similarly the papers conceede that as we move away from absolute zero, the laws must reduce to those aready in application. Now it would be nice to know what the laws are in the low temperature limit, but given they reduce to the current set of laws over the temperature range we are interested in, then the issue does not affect the validity of climate change models, and you are being disingenuous if you are suggesting otherwise.
The only directly relevant question is if the laws (as currently applied) hold over the range of conditions they are applied to in climate change models. Complaining that they diverge from experiment outside of that does not disprove climate models. All it is an arguement for more basic research money. The findings of the models will remain valid unless you can ahow that the assumptions and relationships they employ do not hold in the domain they are employed over.
You have assumptions and that’s good, because that’s what physics is supposed to be, but you must modify the model (or its premises) if you have encountered a problem or if the model is too narrow in its domain of application.
If you have any actual objections to the set of assumptions I employed on stefan boltzmann (essentially only that of local equilibrium) I suggest you actually state them, instead of implying they are wrong. The only substantive criticism you directly provided last time was that molecules can rotate, which I quickly showed not to be relevant.
I suggest that you dig a little bit more (hint, find the cited papers that are referenced at the end of those 2 papers that I linked to , from the other thread). Most of them are available online.
The onus is on you to directly provide information to back up your statements. Not merely say look in that pile of papers, something might be in there. If you can show an experiment where stefan boltzmann + frequency dependent emissivity does not adequately reproduce experimental results in the relevant temperature range then thats fine; however what you have shown so far in no way establishes this.
You keep reverting to approximating. I stated above, that the problem is not estimations or reduction of QM to CM or reduction of General Relativity to CM when object’s velocity is much much less than light speed. Phew! Do you follow or not? We have QM that gives the same predictions as Multi-verse theory? They both reduce of course to CM.
Which one is true? Doe the electron or particle in the double-slit-experiment pops in from another parallel universe to go thru the other hole and interfere behind the screen according to Multiverse or simply the single particle goes thru the 2 holes at once according to the standard QM? Just flip a coin. Which one? Multiverse or QM? They give the same predictions/observations although they portrayed different nature of reality? You know that they can’t be both represent the true nature of reality. Either one of them is bullshit or they’re both bullshit, in which case we should look for a new one or we should simply say what Feynman advocated is to just shutup and calculate, since those theories predictions just give what we expect to see? This is approximation and not searching for reality. There is a huge huge difference there. Now do you see of where I am coming from? We can use these theories without much care about what reality that underpins them , since they are useful and give reasonably good agreements between theory and observations. We can’t apply the same mentality to climate models, since there is a huge economic effect that will result in just doing that.
Paradigm said… If you can show an experiment where stefan boltzmann + frequency dependent emissivity does not adequately reproduce experimental results in the relevant temperature range then thats fine
It is not about a specific range of frequencies, it should be the entire spectrum that should be applied to.
Have you read the followings? If you haven’t, then I’ll do the research for you?
The temperature dip in the 1940s to 1960s cannot be explained by the current IPCC models. This indicates that our current understanding partly wrong or completely false.
Concerned mother of four Nicky Chapman petitioned for Government climate change policy at Parliament grounds today.
The Dunedin woman took up the cause after reading about “ocean acid” – “I want my kids to enjoy the ocean as I have,” she said.
“I thought this is something I can do. There wasn’t a formal petition going to the House.”
“It’s a goal setting exercise to acknowledged that the safe target is 350 parts per million of C02. Once we’ve got that goal we can work positively together.”
Ms Chapman, backed by Caritas (Catholic agency for justice, peace and development) and climate change action group Wellington 350, gained over 3000 signatures of support in just over three weeks.
“I see this petition as a way of holding hands across generations, across the globe,” she said.
Another “concerned” parent, just like Quiche Castle-Hughes.
The good news for the deniers who hang their hats on those non-climatologists, McIntyre and McKitrick (is that name a trick, or what?) at http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252, is that Mann et al have recalculated and reaffirmed the original hockey stick using a much wider range of proxy data.
Here’s the abstract:
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
Even better, a link is provided to criticism (of course) by M&M of the reconstruction AND it is replied to by MM et al!!
The bad news for the deniers is this: you need to think your way through all this, sorry.
PNAS is the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
So it seems we are stuck with the Hockey Stick.
PS Trademe now has a category for trading Carbon Credits. Look under “business farming & industry/carbon credits”.
Yea and some dumb arse Tauranga clown bought some carbon credits from Meridian and gave them to Key to use on his Copenhagen trip so it would be seen as carbon neutral.
What a crock of shit.
And if Kiwiblog visitors don’t believe the National Academy of Sciences of the United States how about the Royal Society of the United Kingdom:
Introduction:
Climate science statement
Published Date: 24 November 2009
The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Yea and some dumb arse Tauranga clown bought some carbon credits from Meridian and gave them to Key to use on his Copenhagen trip so it would be seen as carbon neutral.
You know what they say about “a fool and his money”.
It Is fine by me if a fool wants to part with his money in the name of Gaia worship
Where I part company with all of this is I am not a fool and a strongly object to fools parting me from my money in the name of this cult.
Ms Hansen said… The good news for the deniers who hang their hats on those non-climatologists, McIntyre and McKitrick
Congratulation Ms Hansen for having a short memory. Do you consume information that we throw around relating to the AGW debate or are you suffering from amnesia ?
I stated clearly to you last week, that your Lord Professor Gavin Schmidt got his PhD in mathematics and not physics nor climatology. Since you don’t seem to remember that from my comment last week, you just brought it out again here on this thread by claiming that McIntyre and McKitrick are non-climatologists themselves which is true, but so as your Lord Professor Gavin Schmidt (a non-climatologist himself). So, do you really have a point to make or you just like to make a piss take / idiotic comment?
The point is that both Hansen and Schmidt are practising and respected climatologists.
M & M are an economist and a geologist and neither have the body of work or the recognition of Hansen and Schmidt.
I have tonight pointed to two prestigious bodies, the NAS of the USA and the Royal Society of the UK who would think that your views live up to your Kiwiblog handle.
Do me one favour: name one, just one, governmental science body of any country that rejects AGW. Just one. Highest points for that of a member of the OECD.
Meantime, to think that I would leave my daughter’s and my grandchildren fates to yours and getstaffed’s anonymous and ill-informed blogging here is just risible.
Hurf, what was basically a European civil war, with interlopers and opportunists eyeing up the main chance, is not particularly important in the wider scheme of things.
Ms Hansen said… I have tonight pointed to two prestigious bodies, the NAS of the USA and the Royal Society of the UK who would think that your views live up to your Kiwiblog handle.
Ms Hansen, here you go again. I pointed out to you earlier on, that the nature of physical reality, cannot be dictated to by human consensus. Reality dictates to us humans and not the other way round. Did you watch the double-slit-experiment youtube animation, which the consensus says, that in fact, material objects can traverse 2 different points in space at once! That means that you (or an object) can be here (some point A) and there (some point B) simultaneously? Do you take this consensus seriously? Or perhaps physical reality is laughing at the consensus of human scientists for making a fool of ourselves by thinking in that manner.
Prestigious bodies is irrelevant when it comes to formulating what true physical reality is about. We can’t dictate to reality of how it should behave. Reality dictates to us.
Meantime, to think that I would leave my daughter’s and my grandchildren fates to yours and getstaffed’s anonymous and ill-informed blogging here is just risible.
And your anonymous and ill-informed blogging is somehow better informed? Pfffft.
Perhaps you could define “accepts AGW” first so that the notion of “rejects AGW” has some context. From where I sit there is absolutely no independently verified consensus of what AGW is, let alone an agreed definition of any supposed impact. No, there are simply swarms of factions and self-interest groups feasting on the ill-informed public’s disinterest, while being directed by a power hungry UN.
Let’s face it, politicians the world over share a disinterest in anything other than gaining more power. Their ‘concern’ for local constituents is uniformly transparent. But for some reason… all this should be swept aside because suddenly they ‘care’ for the global environment and our future’s… decades from now? Yeah right.
Science has died somewhere in this mess. Yet you want to gamble our futures on what amounts to promises from power-craving politicians. Crazy. Absolutely crazy.
Such rapid changes have occurred previously in the paleo-history of the planet, accompanied by widespread extinctions of species.
True, and a classic reminder of the alarmism that confronts us.
At the end of the Triassic period, there was massive extinctions caused by a large climate event. That is quite accepted. The generally accepted theory is that a huge amount of supposedly heat-trapping carbon was released into the atmosphere.
So far so good.
But things are relevant. First, there were no humans, cars, coal stations, aeroplanes or farting cows during the Triassic period as it was ~200 million years ago. Second, the planet recovered. We are here now.
This is nature. Why are greenies so intent with fucking with nature?
Hurf, what was basically a European civil war, with interlopers and opportunists eyeing up the main chance, is not particularly important in the wider scheme of things.
Wow. So science is not Luc’s weakest subject after all …………..
what was basically a European civil war, with interlopers and opportunists eyeing up the main chance, is not particularly important in the wider scheme of things.
There is a comprehansive analysis of the The Decline here. Also, you have not responded to my comment. Calling me deluded does not count as a response.
Hurf, what was basically a European civil war, with interlopers and opportunists eyeing up the main chance, is not particularly important in the wider scheme of things.
Then how come the first shots in what was to become known as WW2 were fired by the Japanese (Asian) in Manchuria (Asian) September 1931 Luc?
That may will be case Luc, but DPF almost always comments on important issues.
The lack of comment on an issue that is certainly going to effect the next general election, and every NZ’er financially no matter what their status is bewildering.
DPF has made his stance known as has most people I know and even those I don’t.
DPF usually has an insider knowledge and POV. Most regard his comment with respect whether it is in conflict or not with their own.
He is just being uncharacteristically quiet on this one.
Easy. Because it’s not nature that is driving this change. It’s humans. Us. And now there are 6 billion of us. How many of “us” were there during the last great extinction?
American Thinker is to thinking what Tiger’s Woody is to marital fidelity.
PS Which comment did you want a response to again?
Hurf, we won’t be rationing power. That’s a myth. We are blessed in NZ with water and wind. We just might need to persuade Anton Oliver to go live in France so we can build wind farms. They do nuclear, there, no sweat. Clean and green.
I’m looking forward to Key coming home from Copenhagen a changed man as regards climate change. I bet we no longer see a skeptic.
I imagine all the scum in Shittenhagen will line his pockets. And yes, there will be power rationing. And food rationing. And fuel rationing. And everything rationing. Because under the glorious socialist utopia, everyone has to suffer to be equal.
Shittenhagen will fail. China, India and Russia will tell the guilt-ridden Westerners to fuck off – not that that will stop them giving BILLIONS of our money to countries “under threat” such as Tuvalu, the Maldives and Bangladesh.
I’m starting to think the Hondurans are onto a good idea.
I’m looking forward to Key coming home from Copenhagen a changed man as regards climate change. I bet we no longer see a skeptic.
I think Luc that most of the world leaders are privately anti-cc, and are not so weak willed to be converted by a couple of key note speakers. What they put before their voters and why is a different matter though.
What they put before their voters and why is a different matter though.
Sonny – Sadly what they put before their voters are carefully targeted bribes designed to secure another three years of absolute rule.
I didn’t vote Key in on the promise of increased taxation, nor on the prospect of him signing up to multi-billion dollar international treaties that impinge on our sovereignty.
I feel ever so slightly better about the global scam, having recently cancelled my WWF monthly donation due to their endorsement of the Copenhagen global government tax. This follows from my cancellation last year of my donations to UNICEF, which I actually cancelled on the instigation of my wife after she read reports of UN employed pedophiles.
Now I find myself without undeserving charities to donate to, I’ll be giving Steve McIntyre and Climate Audit my financial support.
Fortunately he has time to pontificate on whether Hone should be charged for driving without a helmet.
Remind me, how is Key different from Klark again? She too was constitutionally unable to control herself from giving an opinion on anything and everything.
“Remind me, how is Key different from Klark again?”
I never had any time for Labour or the overbearing, at times dictatorial Clark, but you have to admit there are substantial differences of style between these two.
Clark appeared decisive and firm; Key has the spine of an eel and grins most of the time.
Clark looked in control of her Cabinet; Key seems aloof and let his ministers get run amok, e.g., Nick Smith.
Clark spoke with a misguided confidence; Key mumbles and makes little sense in his statements.
Clark was a control freak; Key is laziness personified.
I have just seen some coverage of the opening of the Copenhagen summit on today’s news, and it’s blatant propaganda. At the opening, candidates were shown a short film of a helpless little girl as a huge wave came to wash her away, and she ends up clinging to a tree. It was pure Hollywood.
There was more pollution coming from the mouths of the opening speakers than there will ever be from changes to the climate caused by man. I see that Obama has also formally declared CO2 and 5 other gases dangerous to humans.
Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.
Notwithstanding that the ‘science’ on which all this is based is about as convincing as Weatherston’s defence lawyer, our trough-dependent representatives are doing hard time in their 5-stars while planning to sign up for something that will cost taxpayers a fortune today, yet they will never be held to account.
It’s a complete rort. It’s a scam. And we’re suckers.
New Zealand’s so-called “clean and green” reputation is disappearing faster than the climate changer deniers credibility.
Hot on the heels of the incredibly cruel, and incredibly damaging to our image, factory farming proposal in the Mckenzie Basin is the news that no New Zealand newspaper joined in the other 56 newpapers throughout the world in a joint editorial encouraging the Copenhagen Conference to man up and make the necessary commitments to reduce emissions worldwide.
But the sight of the US delegate to the conference, however, emphatically slapping down the skeptics and the deniers was welcome and timely. As the world finally moves into full emissions reduction mode (after a nearly a decade of US denial under the ignorant cowboy caricature), this cabal will shrink into complete irrelevance.
However, if the leaders do not commit to a strong and genuine programme, I am picking that within two years the situation will be so obviously dire that it will become an international crime to build more coal-fired power stations, and later, a crime just to burn coal. Other fossil fuels will face a similar fate, to be used sparingly while we race around in sexy and quiet electric cars.
On a lighter note, it seems Tiger’s lovely wife has dumped him. At last, a women who is just not going to put on a brave but shamed face. A woman who stakes out a firm position that marriage vows are binding, not just a disposable indulgence. Go Elin!
no New Zealand newspaper joined in the other 56 newpapers throughout the world in a joint editorial encouraging the Copenhagen Conference to man up and make the necessary commitments to reduce emissions worldwide.
Good.
the US delegate to the conference, however, emphatically slapping down the skeptics and the deniers was welcome and timely.
Hah. 2005-level cuts, same with China. When the con artists are being conned, hilarity ensues.
I am picking that within two years the situation will be so obviously dire that it will become an international crime to build more coal-fired power stations, and later, a crime just to burn coal.
The sky is falling in. Zzzzzzz. Because the Warmists have been portending to visions of apocalypse since 1998, I won’t put much faith in your crappy predictions. You’re usually wrong anyway.
As Tariq Ali, famous Communist and Islamist, said: “Copenhagen may be the last chance to get communist ideals back onto the global stage.” That’s the only reason for this shitty conference.
I am picking that within two years the situation will be so obviously dire that it will become an international crime to build more coal-fired power stations, and later, a crime just to burn coal.
You have joined Philu as the poster with the least respect on this board IMHO.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Interesting press release from IRD about its “High Wealth Unit”:
That’s a shitload of tax owed (by so few) that would have otherwise gone unpaid. Actually thought we’d have more than than number of wealthy.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:18 am
No Chris, I’m not surprised there are not more. $50mil is a pretty high hurdle. I know plenty of dairy farmers who are milking say 700 cows – that’s a substantial business turning over close to $0.5mil but their asset value generally will be around $15m to $20mil depending on locality.
I expect there will be quite a large number in the 30 to 50 mil range.
However, you are right. That’s a shit load of tax. I must say some of the most successful business people with whom I’ve been associated do not make huge effort to reduce tax. They figure their energies are more productively aimed at making money rather than avoiding taxes.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Sounds like blatant profiling to me.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Why Murray, Do you make over $50 mill?
December 7th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Reminder for anyone in the Auckland area
ETS Public Meeting
Monday 7 December, 7.30pm
John Boscawen, ACT’s spokesperson on Climate Change, invites you to a Public Meeting to discuss the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Guest speaker will be Richard Treadgold, convenor of the Climate Conversation Group. Richard collated the paper “Are We Feeling Warmer Yet?” from a combined research project of the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Come and find out:
- Why the ETS will see many low and middle income families struggle
- Why many feel the scientific consensus is crumbling and dispute the fact that the science is settled
- Why it will be more difficult for our export businesses and farmers to compete
- Why ACT’s offer to support National in delaying Labour’s ETS was ignored
Where: Royal Akarana Yacht Club, 10 Tamaki Drive, Okahu Bay, Auckland
When: Monday 7 December, 7.30pm
For more information email kbridgman@xtra.co.nz or call 09 531 5531
December 7th, 2009 at 8:34 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/3130817/Maori-bid-for-deal-on-spectrum
Another Maori rip-off and special deal with the racists in the making.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Yes XChequer, I’m on $65 mill but I still take time out of my busy day to slum it here with you guys.
You aware that profiling is a concept that actually means targeting a group on the basis of prdetermined parameters not just groups that one beliongs to? Or is it ok to target the groups you don’t like, or in this case envy?
December 7th, 2009 at 8:53 am
And its not “a shit laod of tax”. Its a shitload of money that IRD is claiming. There is a world pf difference between what IRD claims and the reality once their interpretations have been tested in court.
Or should just take all governments departments word for it when they tell us something?
December 7th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Dear Mr Key,
I read of a change of heart by world leaders towards copenhagen. I know this does not mean that you have all decided that AGW is Bullshit. I know this means you are all getting excited at the thought of taxing your citizens even further. Mr Key, please remember something before you enter the room and drop your pants for the circle jerk. This is not just about the future of the world, which whether you believe gore et al or not, will still be here. maybe covered in hockey sticks and man bear pig, probably not though. The impact of what you do at copenhagen will live with us for years. we can kiss goodbye a pay rate as high as australia’s in 2025, and say hello to honduras’s. I know you don’t care, or even pretend too. this is a media op for you, and a bloody good one. To me it means everything, and I will not be voting national again should you ratify anything without asking the people of New Zealand first. Don’t forget, we voted the last government out becuase they tried to tell us all the time what is good for us. And like all governments, didn’t know anything.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:02 am
” However, you are right. That’s a shit load of tax.”
It actually should be a crime to harass people in this manner, and another sign that in terms of respect for traditional freedoms, this country is a stinking soviet cesspit.
Its not as if the $80 million is put to any good. Used to pay dole bludgers, overpaid civil servants or to bribe racist politicians, or to send do gooding loafers on world trips.
What a lame population to not only put up with but applaud such treatment of its citizens.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:07 am
The story is bullshit, it reads as though the unit managed to bring in an extra 81 million whereas in fact they will be including all the tax paid by this group, not just any extra they managed to squeeze out.
Spin.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:13 am
The saddest stat in that release is “those who own or are in the control of wealth in excess of NZ$50 million. Currently an estimated 250 such individuals in New Zealand.”
Seriously we are one poor country.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Falsify the data and then produce the computer modeling. Sounds like Das Kapital.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:24 am
“those who own or are in the control of wealth in excess of NZ$50 million. Currently an estimated 250 such individuals in New Zealand.”
That’s an absolute minimum of 12.5 billion and is likely to be substantially more.
Those who think the HWIU is being mean – over what level of earnings should tax paying be voluntary?
December 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
“Falsify the data and then produce the computer modeling. Sounds like Das Kapital.”
In this case it seems to have been das capitalists “arranging their finances to minimise tax exposure”.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:30 am
“over what level of earnings should tax paying be voluntary?”
Easy.
X divided by Y.
X is what it costs to run the country. Y is the number of tax payers (taxpayers being defined as all those of voting age).
December 7th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Great to hear the news about the cradle of Christmas ,Adagio. I am always very suspicious of positive reviews of big city dramatic affairs. A rave comment usually means that it is far removed from “ordinary” New Zealanders.
To hear news that the “f” word was to the fore as well as sexual innuendo, then see that free entry had been offered to under 10 year olds from CYF. Sounds par for the course for some of the idiots that claim themselves to be purveyors of the truth.People outside the elitist fringe cringe when they hear this message.
To hear the mealy mouthed comments from Ms Heaton, director of that great purveyor of elitism Downstage, saying that removing sexual innuendo and the profanities would be condascending to children.
The use of profanity is in the hands of individuals, I totally agree with this. However, do we expect young people to be exposed to that language and concepts that are not child like. Let our kids enjoy Christmas for its aspect of family,kindness and love for one another.Christmas is a time for building respect not using it as a means to extend political ideas.
Why insert unpleasantness into this season.
Do some thinking those people who try to use culture as a means of damaging our fabric of cociety, our kids !!
[DPF: I suggest you watch it before you make a fool of yourself. It is totally safe for children, and very sweet.]
December 7th, 2009 at 9:43 am
“In this case it seems to have been das capitalists “arranging their finances to minimise tax exposure”.” And?
You pay more tax than you are rquired to do you pete?
December 7th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I have watched a few Christmas plays and to me they were sanitised and bland, something one had to sit through once a year with little chance of entertainment. My kids still laugh about wearing tea towels on their heads. They were usually shepherds in the background because they weren’t very high up the JC PC pecking order.
Adagio sounds like it is something that would be actually entertaining for kids. Christ, it’s not like they are totally closeted from the odd swear word and the occasional bit of sensualness.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:50 am
How not to measure temperature, part 92 – surrounded by science
Some useful commentary from Antony.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Michelle Bachmann, is a housewife and mother who dares to advocate limited government, free markets and traditional marriage.
One day, fed up with the lack of resistance to Progressivism, she put on her coat and went out to a political meeting. Today, thanks to plain talking and truth, and advocacy for traditional values, she tops (with Sarah Palin) the left’s hit list in the US-
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/78555442.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr
December 7th, 2009 at 10:03 am
From the Guardian – ‘Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation’.
Incredible, co-ordinated desperation from the MSM who need alarmist stories to support their flagging advertising revenues. I’ll let others pick apart the untruths in their rant. There are plenty.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:12 am
“Incredible, co-ordinated desperation from the MSM who need alarmist stories to support their flagging advertising revenues.”
Corrupt liars and propagandists who should one day swing from the lamp posts along with the stinking academic charlatans and deceiving power obsessed politicians they toady to.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation
I did see that Getstaffed – indeed I did.
And the headline is accurate but not in the way the writer intended.
The real question is are we going to resile from Popperian Science by replacing searchers for enlightenment with an army of technocrats producing public relations documents to support the agendas of the ruling elites rather than furthering understanding of the world we inhabit.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I cannot believe that just as a well-funded campaign aginst crate farming of pork is getting underway a bunch of greedy corporate farmers want to battery farm dairy cows in the McKenzie country. The arrogance of the dairy industry is getting out of hand. Already, they regard our nation’s rivers and streams as their God given sewers for their industrial strength run-off of cow shit and piss. The Mckenzie country is a fragile, arid and tussock environment. The only reason you would battery farm cows there is so you would have sufficient space to spray raw, untreated sewage all over the place in an orgy of industrial diarrohea on the beautiful scenery there.
I am no vegetarian tree hugger, but any establishment of this style of unsustainable, immoral and cruel factory “farming” in New Zealand would see me going out of way to make sure I would take part in the inevitable call for an international boycott of our dairy industry.
Our “brand” (100% pure? Take a swim in the Manawatu river, if you dare) is already under attack. The simple, decent ethics of our behaviour to animals in our care would demand nothing less than a major boycott campaign, even if dairy is the centre piece export earner and as such an industry unused to hearing the word “no”.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:41 am
“One day, fed up with the lack of resistance to Progressivism, she put on her coat and went out to a political meeting. Today, thanks to plain talking and truth, and advocacy for traditional values, she tops (with Sarah Palin) the left’s hit list in the US-”
Bachmann is a raving loon who – like Redbaiter and his hero Sarah Palin – thinks Obama may not be a U.S. citizen. The crazy is running overtime in the Republican Party at the moment.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Chill Tom – the sad reality is that if this establishment is built and properly managed the cows therein will enjoy a higher quality of life than a substantial proportion of humanity does today, some of them living in our own “clean green” country.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Yep, a raving loon the left are spending millions to try and defeat.
Funny that. If she was as much of a loon as the commies claim, why would they perceive her as such a threat?
Because the reality is both Saran Palin and Michelle Bachman speak a message that puts the lying left in a complete panic.
That message?
Truth.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Because plenty of people vote for loons.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Michele ‘slit our wrists’ Bachmann.
“This cannot pass,” the Minnesota Republican told a crowd at a Denver gathering sponsored by the Independence Institute. “What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.”
December 7th, 2009 at 10:52 am
…inevitable call for an international boycott of our dairy industry.
Are any other dairy sectors boycotted on these grounds?
December 7th, 2009 at 10:55 am
On NatRad this morning Don Nicolson of Federated Farmers said the move to factory dairy farming was in response to environmental pressures!
On http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/factory-dairying-alarms-greens-3231112
Federated Farmers said “so-called factory farming” cut costs, was environmentally friendly, and would not tarnish New Zealand’s reputation.
Cut costs – probably, for the corporate bottom lines.
Environmentally friendly – debatable, especially if cows are considered part of the environment
Would not tarnish NZ’s reputation – that’s a big call and a huge risk
December 7th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Federated Farmers said “so-called factory farming” cut costs,
Weird how Nicholson talks of ‘cutting costs’ just when Eric Watson and co are setting up the ‘more efficient model’ of grass fed operations in the US. Also presumably if this was cheaper than the normal NZ way of doing things presumably someone would’ve set something like this up decades ago.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:06 am
“Because plenty of people vote for loons.”
Only the left could be guilty of the cowardice, spite and irrationality of smearing a good and decent woman as a loon because she does not buy into the insanity of the Progressives.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:09 am
from the story getstaffed linked to @ 10.03am “11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record”
Oh yeah? I was under the impression that global temperatures peaked in 1998, and have since trended downwards – hence the shift in terminology from”Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. And it would seem that the only thing that has been “feeble and half-hearted” has been the MSM’s reporting of the fudged climate data used to advance what is at best a theory.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:17 am
It’s you that suggested the loon idea. Perhaps they think she is perfectly sane but they just don’t like her policies. US politics revels in the smear attack and it comes from both sides. Look at all the stuff put about Obama (he was sworn on the Koran, he’s a Muslim sleeper, he’s not really a Christian etc).
December 7th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“It’s you that suggested the loon idea.”
Fuck off until you can get your facts straight.
Radar- 10:41am- “Bachmann is a raving loon”
December 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am
You might have to widen your research. 1998 was an unusually high peak, but since then the trend lines have held high. There is little scientific doubt the temperatures have increased (based on three separate data sets, CRU being one, plus many independent observations). The biggest question mark is whether the temperatures plateaued, or is something else counteracting the warming trend at the moment.
Skepticism is best aimed at real issues.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Democratic Congressman Demands Apology from Bachmann
Flush off of the upset Democratic victory in NY-23, which he had a big hand in, Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who is Jewish, is demanding that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) apologize for sponsoring Thursday’s anti-health care reform rally, which brought to the hill signs comparing health reform to the Holocaust.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Yeah, like so many Democrats have stated their disagreement with Bush/ Hitler posters. Get a life you cheap cynical political fraud.
(Do your worst. Bachmann and Palin will rise above your cowardice and deceit)
December 7th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Easy, Tiger. When you get all shitty, it just makes your arguments look weak.
I was responding to your comment “If she was as much of a loon as the commies claim, why would they perceive her as such a threat?”, where you’re clearly making the statement that commies do indeed claim she’s a loon.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:36 am
The problem is there is very little grass in the Mackenzie country without intensive irrigation. They probably think it’s cheaper to build huge barns and truck in feed from elsewhere. That could have a big impact elsewhere if they buy large quantities of stock feed, it could force up prices and make sheep farming more uneconomic. Unless they are thinking of palm kernel. That would really enhance our agricultural and carbon reputation.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Typical commie. They love to draw the argument off the main point into peripheal side issues where they feel they can win. Go away Malcom. You’re a mincing bore.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Redbaiter, it’s a bit 1950′s to call someone a ‘commie’ just because they don’t accept your proclamations 100%.
Still if it makes you happy. But please, calm down. You’re making a dick of yourself.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“You’re making a dick of yourself.”
When are you commies going to awaken to the fact that your arrogant pronouncements on whether someone is a dick or a loon are of no interest to the large number of people who despise and reject your ideology?
As for the “commies”, I do not subscribe to the propaganda that this is an outmoded term, and I will use it deliberately whenever I see fit. (being most times I need to describe the lelft in NZ)
December 7th, 2009 at 11:47 am
common decency to say, ‘I disagree with the use of those images.’”
Redbaiter (8042) Vote: 2 1 Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am
(Do your worst. Bachmann and Palin will rise above your cowardice and deceit)
yep, dead fish, a floating out to sea.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Talk of making a dick of yourself.
Don Brash to Garth George: You’re wrong.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10613954
December 7th, 2009 at 11:50 am
The Herald finally shamed into publishing it.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:54 am
The churches are onto the climate bandwagon this week too.On Sunday next lots of bellringing.The Beeb and others are really excited that 192 countries will be represented at Copenhagen ,the real issue is how many of these countries allow their citizens any representation at all.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:55 am
OooooK Redbaiter, whatever you say.
Remember though, when you get all shitty and tell someone to fuck off, it just makes your argument look weak.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Tora Tora Tora (a bit early I know)
December 7th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Doug
I’m not aware of anyone who thinks GG is big on logic, let alone economics, but it’s funny watching two geriatric fundamentalists (in their different fields) having a bit of a set to when they should be arguing about whose turn it is to send down that little white ball.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“OooooK Redbaiter, whatever you say.”
You’re here with the despicable COMMIE coward Radar and the contemptible COMMIE smearer Joe90.
A man is judged by the company he keeps.
And if you don’t want to be told to fuck off, maybe you should be a bit more accurate with your allegations.
“it just makes your argument look weak”
And why can’t you get the damn point?? I don’t give a flying fuck how I may “look” to you and your ilk. In fact the more disregard you have the happier I am. I’m not into appeasement or currying the favour of the politically correct. People I despise. Never have been, never will be.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Is climate change human-induced?
Have your vote on the Stuff website.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/
December 7th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
That’s another pointless poll. What about:
“Is climate change partly human induced?”
“Should we try do anything about climate change?”
December 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Having donated to Michelle Bachmann’s ’08 re-election campaign myself . . .
Congresswoman Bachmann is a graduate of Anoka High School and Winona State University. After earning her law degree, she went on to the College of William and Mary to get an LLM in tax law. Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, live in Stillwater where they own a small business mental health care practice that employs 42 people. The Bachmanns have five children, Lucas, Harrison, Elisa, Caroline, and Sophia. In addition, the Bachmanns have opened their home to 23 foster children, which has inspired Congresswoman Bachmann to become one of Congress’ leading advocates for foster and adopted children. She was recently honored with an appointment to the bipartisan Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute’s Advisory Board.
Maybe those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, Palin Palsy or the Blackburn Blight could consult her about possible treatment options at her practice ?
http://www.michelebachmann.com/index.php
December 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Classic. A man is judged by the anonymous posters who happen to be posting on a website at the same time on vaguely the same topics? It’s a funny little world you live in, Redbaiter.
If it’s ok with you, I’d rather not be held accountable for what other people post on this blog. It’s just so difficult getting them to write exactly what I want. Still, if it helps you to lump together and label as a ‘commie’ or ‘progressive’, everyone who doesn’t agree 100% with everything you say, then by all means carry on. I’m sure you will.
Remember though, when you get all shitty and tell someone to fuck off, it just makes your argument look weak. Even if you call them a commie while you’re doing it.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“Arguing with you is like arguing with a turnip.
The turnip can never win.
Nor can it ever be aware of the fact.”
I’m not directing that at anyone in particular (since I’ve already RIPped the turnips)
December 7th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“Remember though, when you get all shitty and tell someone to fuck off, it just makes your argument look weak.”
Oh gawd, not the repetitive strategy again.
Taken the argument as far from Bachmann and Palin as he could get it.
Brain damaged Stalinist commie loon.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“Michele Bachmann” has a Media Interest Index (MII*) of 0.61
“Climategate” has a Media Interest Index of 0.22
“Copenhagen Summit” has a Media Interest Index of 5.96
*The MMI (Media Interest Index) is then 1,000 times the number of news matches divided by the number of web matches. The result is 1 for equal interest between the media and the public. A value of 2 would mean the news media are “twice” as interested as the public. A value of 0.5 would mean that the media are only half as interested as the public. Hat tip: Dr Roy Spencer
December 7th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Oh shit, you win Redbaiter. I can’t match that. You’re just brilliant.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I’d answer No, and No.. but you know that.
How about this question:
“Should our government agree to a binding international treaty, which will cost our country billions, while the science on which the treaty is based is as best unproven, at worst discredited?”
December 7th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
The left (and others) predicted that Abbot’s win over the turncoat Turnbull would bring political ruin upon the Liberal Party-
From the Australian-
“But what was most interesting at the weekend was where the big swings to Abbott came from.
At the 2007 election the Chadstone booth, right near the iconic shopping centre so reviled by Deveny, was lost by the Liberals with a two party preferred vote of 49.95 per cent.
Yesterday the Liberals won it with a two party preferred (TPP) vote of 56.83 per cent, a swing of nearly 7 per cent.
And it wasn’t just Chadstone. Many areas of Higgins that were Labor territory at the last election swung to Abbott and Kelly O’Dwyer. At the Alamein booth, in the more working-class area of the electorate, the Liberals easily lost the booth in 2007 with a TPP of 41.05 per cent but that transformed into 52.32 per cent on Saturday, a swing to the Liberals of just over 11 per cent.
Nearby, the Ashburton booth recorded a Liberal TPP of 51.36 per cent in 2007 and a TPP of 54.07 per cent yesterday, a swing of nearly 3 per cent.
Carnegie North booth had a Liberal TPP of 56.42 per cent in 2007. Saturday the TPP was 59.98 per cent, another 3 per cent swing to the Liberals. Carnegie Upper, which was the Liberals worst booth in 2007 with a TPP of just 39.33 per cent in 2007, had a swing to Kelly of more than 5 per cent to 44.29 per cent.
The Murrumbeena booth, also lost by the Liberals in 2007 with a TPP of 46.37 per cent, was won by the Liberals with a TPP of 50.93 per cent, a swing of 4.5 per cent.
These results were mirrored in Bradfield, particularly in the northern area of the electorate around Hornsby, a suburb in which the centrelink queues are long and which, horrors, has a shopping centre much like the one in Chadstone.
At Hornsby Central, Hornsby East and Hornsby Hospital booths the TPP swings to the Liberal’s Paul Fletcher were between 5 and 13 per cent.
In Chatswood West, where from the top of the many apartment blocks you could probably glimpse Kirribilli House in the hazed distance, the swing to Abbott and Fletcher was 6.8 per cent.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-sign-that-libs-have-got-it-right/story-e6frg75x-1225807506964
December 7th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I see the climate change deniers are out in force peddling their mischievous snake-oil again, with their usual distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies.
An extract from this article by Johann Hari in The Independent:
A study for the journal Science randomly sampled 928 published peer-reviewed scientific papers that used the words “climate change”. It found that 100 per cent – every single one – agreed it is being fuelled by human activity. There is no debate among climate scientists. There are a few scientists who don’t conduct research into the climate who disagree, but going to them to find out how global warming works is a bit like going to a chiropodist and asking her to look at your ears.
Here’s another hockey stick – not a Mann or a proxy, actual real measurements: the full article here.
It shows that the temperatures above 12,000 ft are warmer now than at anytime in the last 3500 years and the last 1000 years look uncannily like the Mann Hockey Stick. Just another nail in the coffin for the deniers.
Mathew Hooten made a tool of himself this morning on climate change, reverting to his natural state of downright ignorance, and talking about swimming with the sharks. In fact, though, projections are firming up for a 2m sea rise by the end of this century that will affect many major cities containing around one billion people, not to mention low lying islands and mafor delatsaaaa and rises of many more meters under the “Business as Usual” scenario favoured by the deniers. Such rapid changes have occurred previously in the paleo-history of the planet, accompanied by widespread extinctions of species.
I wonder if part of the problem of getting the truth of climate change and the possibly catastrophic consequences for humans and many other species to be accepted outside the scientific community is that first, most of today’s adults won’t be around as the sea laps up to our doors, and that it’s just too much to grasp?
I don’t know. What’s your guess?
December 7th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
What was it that the fake scientists behind the emails received in grants? Something like $12 million, or was it $20 million? No wonder they wanted so desperately to keep the scam alive.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Gosh Luc, a Hockey stick eh? Interesting to see that you’ve abandoned the Fraud of Mann. With you gone he can’t have many supporters left.
re your pnas link, I fail to see how generic tree-ring analysis can be switched into the Climate Change debate, particularly when they note under the heading Climate Factors, that “No climatic trends are apparent that might explain the positive trends in tree growth….” (p. 1019).
If you want some more hockey stick shaped things I’ll send you some NASDAQ charts, and you can work on claiming they proof positive of AGW.
Meantime go easy on the suggestion that everone else is full of lies. It just makes you look stupid.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Shock: Global temperatures driven by US Postal Charges
Back in 1885 it cost 2 cents to post a letter. Who would have thought that as postal charges climbed by 40 cents through the next 120 years, that global temperatures would mirror that rise in timing and slope and gain almost one full degree?
Ominously, US Post is set to raise the charges 2c to 44c on May 11, 2009. Postal Action Network (PAN) has already sprung into existence this afternoon and plans to produce a boycott campaign of the new 44c Homer Simpson stamps. Overworked postal workers are enthusiastic. Homer Simpson is reported to have said “Give me the number for 911.”
Barbara Boxer, majority Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, immediately set up an inquiry, announcing that all future changes in price for US post must be approved by the EPA. “We’ll need a full environmental impact statement. We can’t just let global damage be done willy nilly on the basis of some arbitrary postal expenses committee’s need to balance the books. No other government service has to balance their budget, why should US Post?”
President Obama immediately convened a task force at the Federal Reserve to loan $450 billion to US Post to keep prices constant until 3400 A.D..
Tuvalu promptly announced they would cut their postal charges in half ‘just in case’. They are asking for donations in order to keep their postal service running, but are considering shifting to carrier pigeons.
The mechanism is far from clear. Professor Chrichton-Boots from the Chicago Schools of Economics, cautioned that US Post prices are a good proxy for inflation, and that it may be inflation that is really behind the recent change in climate. He admitted it was puzzling that there appears to have been global temperature changes for 3-5 billion years before the advent of either US Postal services, or inflation. “You would think the planetary climate would have been stable.” But Harvard social researchers are calling for funding for archaeological digs to find postage stamps from the precambrian. “It’s under-researched”. US Post said this type of finding would be very important but, if any stamps were found, they would be unable to honor them: “Since at the time, the US didn’t exist, in government, in theory, or even as a landmass”.
A spokesman from US Post pointed out that the ‘Forever’ series of stamps (which cost 41c, but are ‘good forever, regardless of price rises’) are anti-inflationary. They were issued in 2007 which “may explain the cooler weather since then”*.
Critics pointed out that correlation is not causation, and “you can produce a link between any two monotonically rising lines on a graph”. The newly formed UN Intergovernmental Panel on Postal Changes called them deniers, while Jim Hansen from NASA pronounced that executives from The Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service should be jailed henceforth and also retrospectively.
The Russians (Pochta Rossii) announced they would lift the cost of letters from 10 roubles to 100, effective from Monday. “Siberia is too cold”.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/
December 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
It’s hilarious to see the climategate rebuttal spin increasing in desperation each day. The latest claim is another attempt to conjure up scary old bogeymen is that the Russians and ‘Big Oil’ are responsible, with the Times screaming Climategate: was Russian secret service behind email hacking plot?.
Of course this is all rubbish. Yes the CRU data was originally made public from a Russian server but hardly implicates the FSB. Nope, it’s a truth seeker buried in CRU who is responsible for all this. This mole was dubbed “Deep Cool” way back in July – months before the CRU data found it’s way into the public domain.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Interesting to see that you’ve abandoned the Fraud of Mann. Far from it getstaffed and that is exactly one of the lies I am talking bout.
How about this question:
“Should our government agree to a binding international treaty, which will cost our country billions, while the science on which the treaty is based is as best unproven, at worst discredited?”
As is the above. you can argue credibly as to the efficacy of ETS, as does james Hansen, but the science is proven and virtually unanimous amongst climatologists – but I dare say you will find a pet renegade.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
UK Met Office to publish climate records
The Met Office said it was publishing a subset of the full HadCRUT record of global temperatures — that’s one of a handful of global temperature data sets that underpin the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Mitchell told CNN that he didn’t see “any issue whatsoever with the soundness of global mean temperature records.
“If you look at the land data, the sea surface data temperatures and mean air temperature data, those three records independently show a 0.7 degree warming trend over the past 100 years.”
Mitchell added: “We also know that NASA have data sets that show pretty much the same trend over the past 100 years and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) also have a data set.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12/05/climate.data.met.office/
December 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
What nonsense. But keep your head in the sand Luc.
Pete – The 0.7deg rise wouldn’t surprise me at all. Average gobal temps have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850)
December 7th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
So you don’t disagree with the CRU data?
December 7th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Pete – anything from the CRU is about as credible as Weatherston’s defence lawyer.
If other sources suggest a warming trend without needing to falsify data, hide/delete data and methodology, and stack peer-review processes, then I’ll look with an open mind.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Michele Bachmann’s Wackiest Moments
December 7th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
thanks Joe90, now I can see why redbaiter fawns over her.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Pete, NASA is being sued as they will not release data they have complied over the years concerning the climate. Data has been requested under the FOIA (usa) for the last two years, NASA will not release their findings, now why do you think this would be so?. NASA and the CRU are blood brothers hellbent on their own self preservation, all that nice money gone if they come up with the wrong answer.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Extreme left blogs.
Yep, they’re a great source of information on right wingers.
(Only a hate driven leftist would be so dense and obsessive to suggest such a reference)
If she’s so nutty, why has she got you all shitting in your pants like diarrhea stricken new borns???
December 7th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Not shitting myself at all, reddiebaby. Pissing myself laughing at how anyone can see Palin, Bachmann, taitz, et al as serious players.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I find this oddly disturbing – why do a bunch of newspapers feel the need to do this?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/3133492/Papers-share-worldwide-green-message
December 7th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
KiwiGreg – I agree. This is desperate, coordinated propaganda from the worlds MSM. They must not have their biggest seller, AGW alarmism, put to the sword of truth and sunlight.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“Not shitting myself at all, reddiebaby. Pissing myself laughing at how anyone can see Palin, Bachmann, taitz, et al as serious players.”
Well you’re even more dull and stupid than I thought jackboot, as all one needs to do is read the link in my post of 9:55am to see how much fear she inspires in the left, and how much they’re willing to spend to keep her out of politics.
Laughing??
Just one more obvious leftist lie.
You’re shitting your pants you disgusting little totalitarian weasel and coward.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
jesusonacross, redbaiter, you’re really losing the plot.
I see you don’t try to refute any of the claims in joe90′s reference.
I loved the one where she was held hostage by lesbians.
almost as the one where god picked her husband for her and then they prayed and fasted, thus inducing a delusional state, before she decided she had to be America’s saviour. Prolly ’cause ole JC ain’t comin back anytime soon now, ya hear.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Redtiger, you are a bit like a well known golfer, some obvious talent but let down an over eagerness to chase after women of very questionable motives.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
“I see you don’t try to refute any of the claims in joe90’s reference.”
I don’t waste much of my time dealing with the baseless smears of cowards liars and hate merchants.
I know Michelle Bachmann is a good woman who speaks the truth that scares the left shitless.
Many other people know it. What deranged extreme left kooks like Joe90 and you think is up to you and him, and nothing that worries me too much.
Its more the amusement at seeing your panic and the festering hate that rises as a result that is interesting.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Sorry getstaffed – didnt realise you were well ahead of me – sometimes a little bit hard to get to the meat of General Debate when the kids are playing a bit loudly in the sandbox.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
That linking thing is pretty cool though – is that as easy as the < blockquote thing?
December 7th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
If everyone who says Barack Obama needs to prove his elegibility for the role of POTUS is crazy, why doesn’t he just produce the Birth Certificate and show them all to be the nuts you say they are, rather than pay his favourite left wing lawyer around $US1.8 million (to date) keeping all details of his past under wraps??
????????????
Only the brain damaged left could be so wantonly hypocritical and not feel any shame in protecting this fraud, as they are the very scum who demanded McCain’s birth certificate and subpoenaed George Bush’s dental records.
Such arrogant and contemptible artifice.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
“didnt realise you were well ahead of me ”
Him and most people with a brain.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
KiwiGreg – Yeah, they’re pretty easy. Check out w3schools. Happy linking!
December 7th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
radar and joe90 are far-left twats, RB, surprise surprise. Do as I do and rip them so their twattery is well quarantined.
1999
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
2000
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
2001
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
2002
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
2003
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
2004
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
2005
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
2006
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
2007
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
2008
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
2009
ACT NOW TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
I’m starting to think these people are lying.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Hurf- have a look at this for how hopelessly contaminated the mainstream media are. Its exaggerations and alarmism are historical, except that today, its much more evil because the whole damn fraud is inspired by the Progressive political movement.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
December 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
KiwiGreg – linking with text
Edit: getstaffed ahead of me as usual, %$#@%^%^&^&
December 7th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Continued on from this thread
Paradigm said…
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.
No, you simply revert to the comfort of falling back on the notion that if it applies in this domain then that’s all we need. Physics is search for universality. It is about universal laws first & foremost. Applicability then comes out of universality as a result. If it is about specificity (ie, valid in only certain domain as you made out above), then certainly, there wouldn’t have been new theories being proposed as we’ve witnessed over the last 100 years or so. New theories were proposed, not because physicists just simply wanted to have fun with formulas. The need for developing them was prompted when they encountered some disagreements/holes (ie, theories & observations).
Paradigm said…
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.
You have assumptions and that’s good, because that’s what physics is supposed to be, but you must modify the model (or its premises) if you have encountered a problem or if the model is too narrow in its domain of application. Physics has been like this for the last 300 years or so.
Paradigm said…
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.
You completely missed the point of the argument. It is about finding our and establishing of physical reality. Approximation is a different issue altogether. If we’re analyzing the hydrogen atom spectrum, then it doesn’t matter if one uses Bohr model or quantum mechanics, because they give the same results. If one, is trying to establish reality, then Bohr model is false, meaning that reality has got nothing to do with it, although it still gives correct prediction of the emission spectrum observation. If it is (Bohr model) to be treated as reality, then everything in the universe (objects) will be flat , a flat human, a flat car, a flat tennis ball , a flat tree, and so forth. In reality, objects in the universe are not flat but have volume (because atoms and their electrons are spherical that give rise to 3D volumetric objects – since electrons don’t arrange themselves in a flat plane mini-planetary solar system around the nucleus), and that’s an undeniable fact.
So, you should think about physical reality and universality, because that’s what physics should be about. Sure , approximation works well for us in one domain where we don’t need to worry about universality , and a good example is Newtonian mechanics, but when you try to establish reality (associated with universality), then it is a different ball-game altogether. The debate about the validity of the IPCC climate models is whether man is the culprit or not. That’s the reality that is in disputes today. I’ll give you an example. Tell me, if the consensus on the double slit experiment is the true picture of reality, ie, you can be at 2 places at once. Watch this YouTube animation.
Dr Quantum – Double-Slit Experiment
Quantum Mechanics give reasonably accurate prediction of most physical observables that we encounter today, but the question to ask about the double-slit experiment, is : Does this consensus amongst physicists about wave-function collapse (or be at 2 places at once) represent true physical reality? Well, philosophically, it would be a NO, because it is absurd. Experimentally/Theoretically, it is a YES. Go back to the Bohr Model example. Theory & experiment agreed, but reality (we see a 3D world) and theory (which proposed 2D flat-plane atom) disagreed.
Feynman once said, that if one can come up with a theory that explained the double-slit-experiment (epitome of quantum mechanics – QM) in a local & causal manner, then that theory should replace QM and so far, other competing theories haven’t managed to do that in a consistent manner. The double-slit has been observed/replicated with larger object as well in atom-laser & Bose-Einstein condensate super-atoms (tens of thousands of molecules or even more than that), so definitely what we’re seeing/observing are undeniable facts. The question to ask is, if objects can be truly be at 2 places at once or if there is some reality that we don’t know about yet. That’s the important question, because QM may be giving us correct observations (similar to Bohr Model), but reality itself may not be behaving that objects can be located at 2 places at once (wave-function collapse).
May be we should just adopt a Feynman, just shut-up and calculate mentality, ie, we only worry about the predictive accuracy of the theory rather than worrying about its underlying physical reality. This works well in QM, but that shouldn’t be applied to IPCC climate models. We need to find the reality. Is it man or is it natural?
Paradigm said…
I think you must also be careful in how you present those papers: earlier you spoke of lack of agreement between experiment and theory.
You may have interpreted it that way, when I spoke of universality, which is different. A theory can have perfect agreement with observations in a certain domain, but disagreed on another domain, that’s when we questioned its universality. Near universal theories are more trustworthy than ones that don’t and our current climate models are not known to be consistent (or exhibit near universality).
Paradigm said…
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.
Again, our friend Bohr Model keeps popping up again and again. If one encounters a hole, then he should re-examine the premises that went into the formulation of the theory, not because the observation/theoretical prediction disagree or wrong, but the formulation itself (premises) is wrong, because it made unrealistic assumptions of the nature of reality, and that’s the whole point that other scientists are skeptical about man-caused global warming. Wrong law is different from wrong premises.
Paradigm said…
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.
I suggest that you dig a little bit more (hint, find the cited papers that are referenced at the end of those 2 papers that I linked to , from the other thread). Most of them are available online.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
The Tea Partier’s Reference Guide, Official Obama Administration Scandals List
December 7th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Falafulu Fisi and Paradigm – you guys need hugs and a whiteboard. In any order
December 7th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
And in breaking news, the anti smacking law gets the tick of approval, of course it does……………. If it hadn’t we wouldn’t have heard about if.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Meanwhile, I had a chuckle Sunday morning when I heard an interview with a winemaker in the West Bank, OPT. He was complaining mainly about the EU removing tariff-free access to their markets for Israeli products sourced from the occupied territories – his case, wine from grapes grown on stolen land.
What made me laugh is that he complained it was anti-Semitic because it was only because he was a Jew. But the fact is the reason for removal of preferential access was not because of his ethnicity (Eastern European, by the sounds of his accent) or religion, but his citizenry.
Put simply, Mr Winemaker, you are an illegal colonist in an occupied land, and the occupier is the country you are a citizen of – Israel. That’s it, pure and simple: a matter of international law, nothing else.
The winemaker tried to make a virtue of employing Palestinian workers, but you can’t logically militarily occupy land, dispossess the locals, squeeze them into bantustans, then say it’s OK to exploit all that by throwing the occupied people some crumbs.
It’s heartening to see the small but progressive steps towards intensifying the BDS campaign aimed at ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territories.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Luc
It appears you are taking over from phool as this blog’s troll.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Bush Derangement Syndrome?
Figures that the EU is on the side of the Islamists. The foreign commissioner is a Communist, after all, and they are terrified of the Youths of Undeterminate Origin lurking in Londonistan, Paristan and Berlinabad.
Remember, folks: buy Israeli, tell the anti-Western set where to stick it.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
One for the Warmist Investors: Don’t let ‘Climategate’ melt down your portfolio.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Why do we stand idly by and let batshit crazy things like this happen: EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger.
Let me interpret a little further. Every time you breathe out you will be creating a Public Danger. Absolute madness. When Maurice Strong, the founder of the UN Environment Programme said this …
… perhaps classifying the very process of breathing as one of creating danger was what he imagined to get the [wrecking] ball rolling.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
getstaffed
getholdofSarah!
It’s the DEATH PANELS!
December 7th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Ms Hansen said…
It found that 100 per cent – every single one – agreed it is being fuelled by human activity.
That claim is akin to the consensus on the double-slit-experiment (see the youtube animation, I linked to above) from my previous message.
Have you watched the double-slit-experiment animation that I linked to above? The consensus (amongst physicists) is that objects (size is irrelevant) can be at 2 places at once? I recommend that you watch it. Physical reality is not decided/constructed by what humans think of it. It is objectively existed independent of us humans, and that’s a fact.
Ms Hansen said…
There is no debate among climate scientists. There are a few scientists who don’t conduct research into the climate who disagree, but going to them to find out how global warming works is a bit like going to a chiropodist and asking her to look at your ears.
Irrelevant argument. Many great Nobel Laureate theoretical physicists who produced/invented/developed ground-breaking theories were theorists and they themselves had never set foot in a laboratory, but their minds roamed around the universe, such as Einstein, Feynman, Heisenberg, etc,… These were great theorists who produced theories so those can guide experimentalists in their search for reality. Experimentalists need a theory to guide them instead of aimlessly & randomly looking for physical laws that describe the universe, which are quite well-hidden.
Do you believe that consensus or not? Does the nature of physical reality depend on consensus or it is supposed to be objectively independent of us (humans)?
Ms Hansen said…
It shows that the temperatures above 12,000 ft are warmer now than at anytime in the last 3500 years and the last 1000 years look uncannily like the Mann Hockey Stick. Just another nail in the coffin for the deniers.
Ms Hansen, did you know that Hockey Stick is a statistical test and not a physics model ? Do you know the difference or not?
December 7th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/are_we_feeling_warmer_yet.pdf
All the latest graphs and numbers analyzed without prejudice and alteration.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Falafulufisi, I think you need to be careful not to blur two distinct points:
-whether the current theory is desirable in that it may be applied universally
-whether the current theory may be legitimately used to extract useful information in a particular set of circumstances
A failure of the first point does not break climate change models, you need to fail on the second point in order to do that. Indeed were we that hung up on the need for universal applicability of laws, we’d have to bin quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity, as they are mutually exclusive. However we don’t and instead make useful predictions from both.
My example of the lack of need to apply QM to a car was perfectly valid and quite illustrative in this regard: QM reduces to CM (classical mechanics) in the large body limit, so predictions made by CM are still valid. Similarly the papers conceede that as we move away from absolute zero, the laws must reduce to those aready in application. Now it would be nice to know what the laws are in the low temperature limit, but given they reduce to the current set of laws over the temperature range we are interested in, then the issue does not affect the validity of climate change models, and you are being disingenuous if you are suggesting otherwise.
The only directly relevant question is if the laws (as currently applied) hold over the range of conditions they are applied to in climate change models. Complaining that they diverge from experiment outside of that does not disprove climate models. All it is an arguement for more basic research money. The findings of the models will remain valid unless you can ahow that the assumptions and relationships they employ do not hold in the domain they are employed over.
If you have any actual objections to the set of assumptions I employed on stefan boltzmann (essentially only that of local equilibrium) I suggest you actually state them, instead of implying they are wrong. The only substantive criticism you directly provided last time was that molecules can rotate, which I quickly showed not to be relevant.
The onus is on you to directly provide information to back up your statements. Not merely say look in that pile of papers, something might be in there. If you can show an experiment where stefan boltzmann + frequency dependent emissivity does not adequately reproduce experimental results in the relevant temperature range then thats fine; however what you have shown so far in no way establishes this.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Paradigm,
You keep reverting to approximating. I stated above, that the problem is not estimations or reduction of QM to CM or reduction of General Relativity to CM when object’s velocity is much much less than light speed. Phew! Do you follow or not? We have QM that gives the same predictions as Multi-verse theory? They both reduce of course to CM.
Which one is true? Doe the electron or particle in the double-slit-experiment pops in from another parallel universe to go thru the other hole and interfere behind the screen according to Multiverse or simply the single particle goes thru the 2 holes at once according to the standard QM? Just flip a coin. Which one? Multiverse or QM? They give the same predictions/observations although they portrayed different nature of reality? You know that they can’t be both represent the true nature of reality. Either one of them is bullshit or they’re both bullshit, in which case we should look for a new one or we should simply say what Feynman advocated is to just shutup and calculate, since those theories predictions just give what we expect to see? This is approximation and not searching for reality. There is a huge huge difference there. Now do you see of where I am coming from? We can use these theories without much care about what reality that underpins them , since they are useful and give reasonably good agreements between theory and observations. We can’t apply the same mentality to climate models, since there is a huge economic effect that will result in just doing that.
Paradigm said…
If you can show an experiment where stefan boltzmann + frequency dependent emissivity does not adequately reproduce experimental results in the relevant temperature range then thats fine
It is not about a specific range of frequencies, it should be the entire spectrum that should be applied to.
Have you read the followings? If you haven’t, then I’ll do the research for you?
- On the Earthly Origin of the Penzias-Wilson Microwave Background
- Global Warming & The Microwave Background
The temperature dip in the 1940s to 1960s cannot be explained by the current IPCC models. This indicates that our current understanding partly wrong or completely false.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
For fuck’s saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake.
Another “concerned” parent, just like Quiche Castle-Hughes.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
The good news for the deniers who hang their hats on those non-climatologists, McIntyre and McKitrick (is that name a trick, or what?) at http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252, is that Mann et al have recalculated and reaffirmed the original hockey stick using a much wider range of proxy data.
Here’s the abstract:
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
Even better, a link is provided to criticism (of course) by M&M of the reconstruction AND it is replied to by MM et al!!
The bad news for the deniers is this: you need to think your way through all this, sorry.
PNAS is the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
So it seems we are stuck with the Hockey Stick.
PS Trademe now has a category for trading Carbon Credits. Look under “business farming & industry/carbon credits”.
Believe it or not. Look it up.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
The hockey stick is bullshit.
I should get in on the carbon credits con. I’d live quite well.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Yea and some dumb arse Tauranga clown bought some carbon credits from Meridian and gave them to Key to use on his Copenhagen trip so it would be seen as carbon neutral.
What a crock of shit.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
And if Kiwiblog visitors don’t believe the National Academy of Sciences of the United States how about the Royal Society of the United Kingdom:
Introduction:
Climate science statement
Published Date: 24 November 2009
The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Hurf, email Michael Mann. Yes you can. This is where.
mann@psu.edu
Get back to me and let me know how that exchange goes.
OK?
December 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Good one Luc. The paper lists Michael E. Mann as the lead author. That guy belongs in prison, not on the named authors list of serious papers.
This paper, by way of association, will be like a professional millstone around the necks of the other authors. Sad.
But spin away my little struthio camelus. Just earlier today you were treating Mann like a persona non gratia. Flippity Flop!
December 7th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
You know what they say about “a fool and his money”.
It Is fine by me if a fool wants to part with his money in the name of Gaia worship
Where I part company with all of this is I am not a fool and a strongly object to fools parting me from my money in the name of this cult.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I certainly will. Here’s the draft:
December 7th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Ms Hansen,
Here is the algorithm that Mann et, al used in their hockey-stick temperature reconstruction.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
Can you find out which laws of physics that appear in the PCA algorithm?
Hint : Fifth form students can see that there is no laws of physics that appear in the PCA algorithm. None whatsoever.
Statistics is not physics.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
And still no analytical comment from DPF on the most important political issue New Zealand has faced for decades.
Very very strange.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Ms Hansen said…
The good news for the deniers who hang their hats on those non-climatologists, McIntyre and McKitrick
Congratulation Ms Hansen for having a short memory. Do you consume information that we throw around relating to the AGW debate or are you suffering from amnesia ?
I stated clearly to you last week, that your Lord Professor Gavin Schmidt got his PhD in mathematics and not physics nor climatology. Since you don’t seem to remember that from my comment last week, you just brought it out again here on this thread by claiming that McIntyre and McKitrick are non-climatologists themselves which is true, but so as your Lord Professor Gavin Schmidt (a non-climatologist himself). So, do you really have a point to make or you just like to make a piss take / idiotic comment?
December 7th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Falafulu Fisi – Don’t be too hard on poor old Dr Schmidt. After all his high Lord Rajendra Pachauri (Head of the IPCC) is a locomotive engineer!
December 7th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Fala
The point is that both Hansen and Schmidt are practising and respected climatologists.
M & M are an economist and a geologist and neither have the body of work or the recognition of Hansen and Schmidt.
I have tonight pointed to two prestigious bodies, the NAS of the USA and the Royal Society of the UK who would think that your views live up to your Kiwiblog handle.
Do me one favour: name one, just one, governmental science body of any country that rejects AGW. Just one. Highest points for that of a member of the OECD.
Meantime, to think that I would leave my daughter’s and my grandchildren fates to yours and getstaffed’s anonymous and ill-informed blogging here is just risible.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
pentwig
I think DPF is embarrassed by the level of the debate here.
He knows better.
And this actually is the most important issue the WORLD has ever faced, end of story.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
END OF DEBATE END OF STORY THIS IS SUPER DOOPER HELLA IMPORTANT
I’ll think you’ll find World War II a more important issue. At least the idea of German troops rampaging across Europe wasn’t overrated.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Hurf
What’s your understanding of “The Decline”?
December 7th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Hurf, what was basically a European civil war, with interlopers and opportunists eyeing up the main chance, is not particularly important in the wider scheme of things.
Sorry.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Ms Hansen said…
I have tonight pointed to two prestigious bodies, the NAS of the USA and the Royal Society of the UK who would think that your views live up to your Kiwiblog handle.
Ms Hansen, here you go again. I pointed out to you earlier on, that the nature of physical reality, cannot be dictated to by human consensus. Reality dictates to us humans and not the other way round. Did you watch the double-slit-experiment youtube animation, which the consensus says, that in fact, material objects can traverse 2 different points in space at once! That means that you (or an object) can be here (some point A) and there (some point B) simultaneously? Do you take this consensus seriously? Or perhaps physical reality is laughing at the consensus of human scientists for making a fool of ourselves by thinking in that manner.
Prestigious bodies is irrelevant when it comes to formulating what true physical reality is about. We can’t dictate to reality of how it should behave. Reality dictates to us.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
And your anonymous and ill-informed blogging is somehow better informed? Pfffft.
Perhaps you could define “accepts AGW” first so that the notion of “rejects AGW” has some context. From where I sit there is absolutely no independently verified consensus of what AGW is, let alone an agreed definition of any supposed impact. No, there are simply swarms of factions and self-interest groups feasting on the ill-informed public’s disinterest, while being directed by a power hungry UN.
Let’s face it, politicians the world over share a disinterest in anything other than gaining more power. Their ‘concern’ for local constituents is uniformly transparent. But for some reason… all this should be swept aside because suddenly they ‘care’ for the global environment and our future’s… decades from now? Yeah right.
Science has died somewhere in this mess. Yet you want to gamble our futures on what amounts to promises from power-craving politicians. Crazy. Absolutely crazy.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Reality dictates to us.
At last, something we can agree on.
Cheers.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I’m waiting for Hurf to tell me his understanding of “The Decline”.
He seems to have chickened out.
Any other takers?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Luc said:
True, and a classic reminder of the alarmism that confronts us.
At the end of the Triassic period, there was massive extinctions caused by a large climate event. That is quite accepted. The generally accepted theory is that a huge amount of supposedly heat-trapping carbon was released into the atmosphere.
So far so good.
But things are relevant. First, there were no humans, cars, coal stations, aeroplanes or farting cows during the Triassic period as it was ~200 million years ago. Second, the planet recovered. We are here now.
This is nature. Why are greenies so intent with fucking with nature?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Wow. So science is not Luc’s weakest subject after all …………..
December 7th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
getstaffed
IMHO, you are just deluded, if you really believe what you say above.
But let’s assume politicians are as you say. Then obviously the system is not working.
What’s your alternative?
A kinder, gentler totalitarianism?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Hahaha. Really, Puke? Really?
Get to the back of the class.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
There is a comprehansive analysis of the The Decline here. Also, you have not responded to my comment. Calling me deluded does not count as a response.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Hurf, what was basically a European civil war, with interlopers and opportunists eyeing up the main chance, is not particularly important in the wider scheme of things.
Then how come the first shots in what was to become known as WW2 were fired by the Japanese (Asian) in Manchuria (Asian) September 1931 Luc?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Luc @ 10:39
That may will be case Luc, but DPF almost always comments on important issues.
The lack of comment on an issue that is certainly going to effect the next general election, and every NZ’er financially no matter what their status is bewildering.
DPF has made his stance known as has most people I know and even those I don’t.
DPF usually has an insider knowledge and POV. Most regard his comment with respect whether it is in conflict or not with their own.
He is just being uncharacteristically quiet on this one.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Gooner
Easy. Because it’s not nature that is driving this change. It’s humans. Us. And now there are 6 billion of us. How many of “us” were there during the last great extinction?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Andrei, right, so Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland to protect Britain and the US against the Asian localised conflict, right?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Hastings? Yalta? Potsdam? Insignificant. Hopenhagen is where it’s at! Waaaaaah! Great extinctions!
And the left accuses the right of fearmongering.
On the bright side, we General Debaters can spend the power rationing hours telling our grandchildren how we got suckered by the AGW con.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
getstaffed
American Thinker is to thinking what Tiger’s Woody is to marital fidelity.
PS Which comment did you want a response to again?
Hurf, we won’t be rationing power. That’s a myth. We are blessed in NZ with water and wind. We just might need to persuade Anton Oliver to go live in France so we can build wind farms. They do nuclear, there, no sweat. Clean and green.
I’m looking forward to Key coming home from Copenhagen a changed man as regards climate change. I bet we no longer see a skeptic.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I imagine all the scum in Shittenhagen will line his pockets. And yes, there will be power rationing. And food rationing. And fuel rationing. And everything rationing. Because under the glorious socialist utopia, everyone has to suffer to be equal.
Shittenhagen will fail. China, India and Russia will tell the guilt-ridden Westerners to fuck off – not that that will stop them giving BILLIONS of our money to countries “under threat” such as Tuvalu, the Maldives and Bangladesh.
I’m starting to think the Hondurans are onto a good idea.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:09 am
I think Luc that most of the world leaders are privately anti-cc, and are not so weak willed to be converted by a couple of key note speakers. What they put before their voters and why is a different matter though.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:21 am
mr fletcher’s had
some great meltdowns on this blog
but this is the best!
December 8th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Sonny – Sadly what they put before their voters are carefully targeted bribes designed to secure another three years of absolute rule.
I didn’t vote Key in on the promise of increased taxation, nor on the prospect of him signing up to multi-billion dollar international treaties that impinge on our sovereignty.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I feel ever so slightly better about the global scam, having recently cancelled my WWF monthly donation due to their endorsement of the Copenhagen global government tax. This follows from my cancellation last year of my donations to UNICEF, which I actually cancelled on the instigation of my wife after she read reports of UN employed pedophiles.
Now I find myself without undeserving charities to donate to, I’ll be giving Steve McIntyre and Climate Audit my financial support.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Can anyone tell me what has happened to Monkey with Typewriter?? He seems to have gooorrrnnn
December 8th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Election 1960 (1961) James K Baxter
A democratic people have elected
King Log, King Stork, King Log, King Stork again.
Because I like a wide and silent pond
I voted Log. That party was defeated.
Edit: I think we have King Log for now, but he’s obviously being learning from Queen Stork
Ref: Aesop fable the Frogs who desired a king
December 8th, 2009 at 11:13 am
WTF hapenned to today’s GD ??
December 8th, 2009 at 11:19 am
“WTF hapenned to today’s GD?”
John Key, the man of steel, has been given responsibility, but he’s dithering about it.
Expect it on 2 January.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Fortunately he has time to pontificate on whether Hone should be charged for driving without a helmet.
Remind me, how is Key different from Klark again? She too was constitutionally unable to control herself from giving an opinion on anything and everything.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“Remind me, how is Key different from Klark again?”
I never had any time for Labour or the overbearing, at times dictatorial Clark, but you have to admit there are substantial differences of style between these two.
Clark appeared decisive and firm; Key has the spine of an eel and grins most of the time.
Clark looked in control of her Cabinet; Key seems aloof and let his ministers get run amok, e.g., Nick Smith.
Clark spoke with a misguided confidence; Key mumbles and makes little sense in his statements.
Clark was a control freak; Key is laziness personified.
Both are equally bad for New Zealand.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I have just seen some coverage of the opening of the Copenhagen summit on today’s news, and it’s blatant propaganda. At the opening, candidates were shown a short film of a helpless little girl as a huge wave came to wash her away, and she ends up clinging to a tree. It was pure Hollywood.
There was more pollution coming from the mouths of the opening speakers than there will ever be from changes to the climate caused by man. I see that Obama has also formally declared CO2 and 5 other gases dangerous to humans.
These people are freaking NUTS!
December 8th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Aside from the blatany hypocrisy outlined in the headline – Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges, there’s this gem of a paragraph:
Notwithstanding that the ‘science’ on which all this is based is about as convincing as Weatherston’s defence lawyer, our trough-dependent representatives are doing hard time in their 5-stars while planning to sign up for something that will cost taxpayers a fortune today, yet they will never be held to account.
It’s a complete rort. It’s a scam. And we’re suckers.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I bought a bird feeder. I hung
It on my back porch and filled
It with seed. What a beauty of
A bird feeder it was, as I filled it
Lovingly with seed. Within a
Week we had hundreds of birds
Taking advantage of the
Continuous flow of free and
Easily accessible food.
But then the birds started
Building nests in the boards
Of the patio, above the table,
And next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was
Everywhere: on the patio tile,
The chairs, the table ..
Everywhere!
Then some of the birds
Turned mean. They would
Dive bomb me and try to
Peck me even though I had
Fed them out of my own
Pocket.
And others birds were
Boisterous and loud. They
Sat on the feeder and
Squawked and screamed at
All hours of the day and night
And demanded that I fill it
When it got low on food.
After a while, I couldn’t even
Sit on my own back porch
Anymore. So I took down the
Bird feeder and in three days
The birds were gone. I cleaned
Up their mess and took down
The many nests they had built
All over the patio.
Soon, the back yard was like
It used to be …. Quiet, serene….
And no one demanding their
Rights to a free meal.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
New Zealand’s so-called “clean and green” reputation is disappearing faster than the climate changer deniers credibility.
Hot on the heels of the incredibly cruel, and incredibly damaging to our image, factory farming proposal in the Mckenzie Basin is the news that no New Zealand newspaper joined in the other 56 newpapers throughout the world in a joint editorial encouraging the Copenhagen Conference to man up and make the necessary commitments to reduce emissions worldwide.
But the sight of the US delegate to the conference, however, emphatically slapping down the skeptics and the deniers was welcome and timely. As the world finally moves into full emissions reduction mode (after a nearly a decade of US denial under the ignorant cowboy caricature), this cabal will shrink into complete irrelevance.
However, if the leaders do not commit to a strong and genuine programme, I am picking that within two years the situation will be so obviously dire that it will become an international crime to build more coal-fired power stations, and later, a crime just to burn coal. Other fossil fuels will face a similar fate, to be used sparingly while we race around in sexy and quiet electric cars.
On a lighter note, it seems Tiger’s lovely wife has dumped him. At last, a women who is just not going to put on a brave but shamed face. A woman who stakes out a firm position that marriage vows are binding, not just a disposable indulgence. Go Elin!
December 8th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Good.
Hah. 2005-level cuts, same with China. When the con artists are being conned, hilarity ensues.
The sky is falling in. Zzzzzzz. Because the Warmists have been portending to visions of apocalypse since 1998, I won’t put much faith in your crappy predictions. You’re usually wrong anyway.
Fucking liar.
As Tariq Ali, famous Communist and Islamist, said: “Copenhagen may be the last chance to get communist ideals back onto the global stage.” That’s the only reason for this shitty conference.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
You have joined Philu as the poster with the least respect on this board IMHO.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
it’s gareth morgan vs wishart..on close-up..
phil(whoar.co.n)