The powerful Rick Giles

April 2nd, 2010 at 11:51 am by David Farrar

Heh, I have just caught up with this. President has become a media sensation.

It started with this interview on Sunrise with where he was advocating Edison Hour over Earth Hour.

The talk turned to climate change, and Rick was trying to say that his arguments against Earth Hour stood up, regardless of whether or not you thought man-made climate change was happening. However his exact use of words was:

I think my argument is so powerful, it’s not necessary to talk about it

He meant of course that you don’t need to debate whether climate change is happening to talk about whether Earth Hour is a good thing or not, but the phrase has become one of legend.

The “I think my argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about it” Facebook page was born shortly thereafter and is now up to an impressive 3,400 members.

, knowing when they are onto a good thing, gave Rick the opportunity to submit a home video where he makes his case without interjection.

I especially like the part about the communists, the Islamists and all of Ghengis Khan’s hoardes.

I understand there is already a competition between certain MPs for who can be the first in the House to use the phrase “I think my argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about it” :-)

Tags: , , , ,

150 Responses to “The powerful Rick Giles”

  1. peteremcc (341 comments) says:

    Rick wasn’t “given an opportunity to respond”, he just created a video and Driver decided to play it on air.

    Also, Gareth Hughes has already used it in his Unit Titles bill speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    In the first clip he looks like a dipstick, the powerful argument statement just a highlight of that. In his own unedited statement clip he confirms he is a dipstick, not much oil short of a crankcase.

    Was his statement just transcribed incorrectly? His argument is far from powerful – it is more like power fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Rick Giles is obviously an unpolished performer, but speaks honestly and speaks sense.

    I don’t intend to contribute to all the ridicule, and I find the the arrogant sneering of Goff and that other leftist robot called Oliver somebody pretty off-putting.

    I mean who are group think so called journalists like this Oliver nobody to be sneering. If they had been doing their job the way it should be done, instead of acting as advocates for a highly politicised United Nations scam, the truth about global warming and so many like “green” scams would have been much more widely known years ago.

    Sorry. Rick Giles seems OK to me. I’ll save my sneers for the likes of incompetent politically partisan “journalists” like Oliver Somebody and his crony mate Phil Goff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lukas Schroeter (5 comments) says:

    David,

    For the record, Rick’s comments do not represent the views of the vast majority of the ACT on Campus membership.

    That said, I for one was so embarrassed to be associated with his comments via my membership of ACT on Campus that I have resigned as a member.

    Rick Giles needs to go.

    Lukas

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Welcome back RB.

    I thought his arguments were very weak. Eg claiming that if we use more electricity it’s just hydro so it doesn’t matter.

    Do you think the answer to possible impending doom, however it may confront us, is to use more electricity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “That said, I for one was so embarrassed to be associated with his comments via my membership of ACT on Campus that I have resigned as a member. ”

    …and there you have ACT’s big problem. Utterly bereft of political solidarity. Like National, so confused and contaminated by Progressive ideology, there can never be a consensus on the way forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I thought his arguments were very weak. ”

    Yes PG, but to know what leftist robots like you might think and feel is not the reason I read Kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. gnadsmasher (47 comments) says:

    The guy is a world class knob. May he ascend far up the ACT list and join other beacons of enlightenment such as Shawn Tan as worthy heirs to the mantle of libertarianism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. George Patton (349 comments) says:

    Giles performance was so strong, it was not necessary for me to watch the entire clip.

    4 and a half minutes of cringe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Mr Elbow (30 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – you know who else displays solidarity?

    Lemmings.

    ACT on Campus is united in the fact that Rick is delusional and has to go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. gravedodger (1,516 comments) says:

    Of course we have the leadership of vwsu managing debate soo well at the recent meeting to deal with the resolution on Sir Roger’s bill. Now as one who avoids the deadtree press with passion can any one update me on that little “democracy in action” fiasco by the really erudite leaders of vwsu on that matter. Don’t we have these examples of immature student brain explosions to remind us of the foibles of our present leaders in an earlier time. The articulate Philin still has equally cringeworthy moments in present times..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Lindsay (141 comments) says:

    The problem with the 3 Interview was Oliver Driver. The classic supposed interviewer expresses his omnipotent view over that of the person who he is supposed to be eliciting a view, and explanation of it, from. Is it any wonder most watch TV 1 in the morning.

    I understood Rick’s argument and the way he tried to confine the discussion to that, but most people are too undisciplined to stay with the essential thrust. When Driver (well-named) started going on about man-made climate change and the body of opinion perhaps Rick should have countered with the 30,000 scientists who have signed a petition rejecting the science. And now more than ever the climate change science is looking very shaky. Rick was trying to argue him in an academic fashion that doesn’t work for the woolly-minded. (When he said, “concede that global warming is man-made”, he did it in a ‘for argument’s sake’ fashion to show his proposition was still valid but the audience may have understood it as him actually conceding.)

    Politically the voting public doesn’t perceive student politics as steadfastly representative of the bigger party. They expect students to be provocative, unorthodox and express themselves in a more maverick fashion. Those ACT people giving Rick a hard time are probably making a mountain out of a mole hill and should examine their own motivations.

    Stick with it Rick. The experience will do you good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rachael Rich (204 comments) says:

    A war is brewing – AoC vs Rick. And there’s now a Hitler video:

    http://clintheine.blogspot.com/2010/04/rick-giles-explains-earth-hour.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The issue here is not really Gil’s, its ACT’s same old problem. That is that in trying to advocate political policies that the mainstream media, that band of Progressive propagandists, deem as “off limits”, they will always be subject to ridicule and denigration. Unless ACT develop a strategy to deal with the partisanship of the mainstream media in NZ, they might as well fold their tent right now.

    Hint for Mr. Hide and others in ACT- the solution does not involve trying to suck up to the media. Sure, they have massive resources to shape and mould public opinion in the way they want to, but that is the way it is and you have to fight accepting that reality.

    David once slew Goliath. As out numbered as you may be, you have to develop a political offensive against the left wing mainstream media that works, or you might as well forget it. That advice applies to any party seeking to give voice to ideas outside the parameters that the mainstream media consider approved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    He sounds about par for politically-minded uni students; long on condescension and convert zeal, and short on real world experience and knowledge. Don’t be too hard on him – he’s probably only just finished ‘Atlas Shrugged’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Grizz (500 comments) says:

    This guy fell apart on national TV. He was a very unpolished performer and did not know his arguments well. Easy fodder for even the most mediocre of TV interviewers. Driver was handed him on a plate.

    I am not sure what message he was trying to say. It was totally incoherent. I really do not think he understands the New Zealand electricity situation at all, let alone the arguments against global warming. For those who thought Earth Hour was a joke were left aghast at this lame duck speaker. For those who think environmentalists are looney, this guy was worse for totally different reasons.

    It really highlights the personel problems ACT is having at the moment. If Rick Giles ever tries to run for parliament or significant office anywhere he will sadly be reminded of this interview and his very weak response to his laughable performance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. black paul (124 comments) says:

    I agree with Lindsay. This is a turbulent and challenging time for ACT, and seeing the young blood developing is healthy and necessary for the future of the party.

    Rick needs to step up his communication skills, and he will in time if given a chance to. He reminds me of a young John Boscowen and that’s not a bad thing at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Jules Jewel (37 comments) says:

    For earth hour I turned all the lights off and went to bed for the night. And I did not use candles. And I think it was great symbolism.
    Giles needed autocue’s, maybee next time he could do so, and be more coherant. Good to see young folk thinking about things and expressing their viewpoint – its better than no doing it like most of the population.
    His point about ‘in NZ we use Hydro Electricity’ so it only water is, in my opinion, a very parochial one. Yes, we are so fortunate to be able to have the resources to make non-polluting electricity. But what about other countries. Nuclear power stations and the heat sinks in the water towers, that then dissapates into the atmosphere. Burning coal, and the CO2 and heat that is generated.
    Giles would do well to work against the mining of lignite from National Parks, and exporting it to China so that they can continue to create heat pollution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Giles needed autocue’s, (sic) maybee (sic) next time he could do so, and be more coherant (sic). ”

    ..and maybe next time (perish the thought), you could be more literate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Redbaiter you are quite right – a week or so ago David put up a picture with a starving African kid that showed the “other side” of biofuel. It is that sort of advertising that the right need, and it is that sort of advertising that the left have been very good at for years. Only today I saw an ad on Yahoo for WSPA with Natalie Imbruglia in front of a cage, with the tagline about “her imprisonment” before it cut to a picture of a bear. If the left can use that sort of media for fuzzy issues, I am sure that the right can argue a logical case using the same imagery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    That news presenter actually fucked me off more, i would have asked him if he had a shovel the moment he mentioned belief.

    Oh and forced Meme is Forced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “It was totally incoherent.”

    Thanks for that opinion, but it wasn’t actually. Try listening to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Anthony (768 comments) says:

    I think the likes of Lukas are over reacting. It’s great to see someone challenging accepted wisdom with some reasonably sound arguments. He is doing just what I would expect an Act on Campus President to do. His public speaking skills are quite good for a non-professional. Oliver Driver and Phil Goff are the ones who end up looking like dicks in my opinion.

    Good on you Rick. It is about time I renewed my lapsed Act membership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Mr Elbow (30 comments) says:

    RB – I tried listening to it about five times, and I still don’t know what his point is.

    Black Paul – don’t ever let John Boscawen hear you say that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “RB – I tried listening to it about five times, and I still don’t know what his point is.”

    Well, if that is true, then I’m sorry, but I don’t think myself or anyone else can help you much. My advice is just to stay in your comfort zone with the other stone throwers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Redbaiter 12:47 pm,

    David once slew Goliath. As out numbered as you may be, you have to develop a political offensive against the left wing mainstream media that works, or you might as well forget it. That advice applies to any party seeking to give voice to ideas outside the parameters that the mainstream media consider approved.

    Exactly right!
    Even if you may find yourself in the minority (although I think those that see through the AGW lie are likely, in fact, the majority), it is indeed important to stand up for your beliefs/convictions; and against the tide of evil which is often presented by the MSM as ‘fact’ – and thus the ‘majority’ view of ‘informed’ people.

    If we do not continue to challenge the ‘lies’ the MSM present as ‘fact’, then we indeed “might as well forget it”.

    PS Good to have you back, Red – have sorely missed your input here over the last few weeks [crowd cheers in background].

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    His preparation was obviously poor (put that down to the arrogance of youth), but for what I assume was his first time on TV, he did ok. Particularly as he was arguing with a camera and screen – which is apparently very awkward and takes a lot of practice to look normal.

    ‘in NZ we use Hydro Electricity’ – except for the 20-40% of electrical energy which comes from coal and gas each year. But most politicians would say the same – safe in the knowledge/ignorance that most NZer’s wouldn’t know otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Lukas Schroeter (5 comments) says:

    To those who are defending Rick:

    The problem with Rick goes far beyond his lack of media skills. The biggest problem is that he refuses to listen to and engage with the membership he represents. Many AoC members have tried to reason and plead with him (including people who have defended him publicly). His general response has been to dismiss them because he believes they are attacking him personally. Rick seems to think he is a law unto himself. Moreover, he seems not to care how much damage he is doing to the organisation. It is for these reasons that people are calling for him to be rolled. It is for these reasons (and the AoC executive’s failure to roll him) that I resigned as a member of AoC today.

    Lukas

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Mr Elbow (30 comments) says:

    “I don’t think myself or anyone else can help you much.”

    What a coincidence Redbaiter – I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Fair disclosure Lukas?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Lukas Schroeter (5 comments) says:

    Malcolm: I believe so.

    If you disagree with me, feel free to contact me on 021 150 1531 or lcschroeter@yahoo.co.uk. I would be interested in hearing your views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Here’s the kind of stuff that journalists like “Oliver Nobody” should be reporting on, rather than doing predictable left wing hit pieces on people who challenge their environmentalist orthodoxy.

    From Climate Change downwards, the environmental movement is full of charlatans, fakes, propagandists, cronyists, liars and scammers. So much so that even the Energy Star certification process is shown to be completely bogus, and its CNS news (an internet news service) and not the slithering servile fake journalists at TV3 that are exposing this scam.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63638

    Oliver Nobody should enjoy his sneers at Rick Gile’s expense while he can. The time of such partisan propagandists as Oliver, who have completely failed to scrutinise any of the environmental political paridigm, and have thereby completely betrayed their craft, is quickly drawing to a close.

    Rick Giles might be due a smile for his naiveté, but like so many other so called journalists, Oliver Nobody is due contempt for the betrayal of his profession.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Jenna R (27 comments) says:

    Rick’s performance on Sunrise was embarrassing, but from what I gather AoC initially stuck by him. What made it all 10000x worse was Rick’s subsequent behaviour: the youtube clip, his promotion of the very Facebook group which mocks him, his communication with Mr Vintage about “working together” to make t-shirts, and his insistence that this is an opportunity to capitalise on. Rick is a total laughing stock. You only have to look at comments on Facebook and Youtube to gather that. A very bad look for ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Anthony (768 comments) says:

    Mr Elbow – Rick’s points are that earth hour is unlikely to save resources because of the substitution effect – and it promotes the idea that technology is bad when in our of need we will be wanting technology more than ever. So maybe an hour to promote technological innovation would be better than an hour that promotes turning off technology and using candles instead!

    Nothing wrong at all with promoting such arguments and I would suggest the old saying of any publicity being good publicity probably applies in this case. I would suggest that the membership of Act is likely to increase more than it decreases.

    Rick may not be the ideal person to have as President but that is another issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Lukas, by ‘fair disclosure’ I meant if you’re going to comment disparagingly on Rick, then you should disclose your own position in regards to AoC Presidency. Obviously you’re not using a pseudonym but most people on this blog probably don’t know who you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Anthony (768 comments) says:

    Act by its nature is not a mainstream party so all this crap about ‘a very bad look for Act’ is laughable. Act standing up to left wing lazy thinkers – great. My cheque is in the mail!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” You only have to look at comments on Facebook and Youtube to gather that. A very bad look for ACT.”

    Get a life. There are thousands of desperate socialist haters out there who will take any opportunity given to them to ridicule and denigrate ACT. You need to stand up to them, not be cowed by their smears. Hopeless. Where is your courage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    “For earth hour I turned all the lights off and went to bed for the night. And I did not use candles. And I think it was great symbolism.”

    And with all this utterly wonderful symbolism, have you made any substantive changes to your life post-symbolic gesture, or have you already made or begun making the necessary changes to minimise your impact upon the environment? Regardless, do you think that those who participated in Earth Hour who had not made or had not begun making the necessary changes to minimise their impact on the environment will now do so, or will it just be a sop to make them feel better about themselves?: “Hey, I participated in Earth Hour. I’ve done my bit. I don’t need to make substantive changes. Next year, I’ll participate again and ease my conscience.” Of course, this wouldn’t be verbalised, but I know which behaviour I believe is more likely to occur.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. BlairM (2,287 comments) says:

    Sunrise’s share of the ratings and ACT’s share of the vote are about level, no? Which makes this an amusing internet meme, but frankly, not the end of the world, and certainly not some great disaster for ACT. People need to get some perspective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. LabourDoesntWork (282 comments) says:

    The central, and false, premise of Earth Hour is that it’s Earth versus Us; i.e., that we need to switch off and sacrifice for the sake of the planet, and that our self-interest is mutually exclusive to that of the planet, its life forms etc. This is the false premise that is so attractive to the left. The premise provides a potentially limitless number of ways to regulate human behaviour for the ultimate “greater good” – the planet itself. It’s a fascist’s dream. Everyone needs to know what was in the UN’s agenda document at the Copenhagen summit. This is no conspiracy fantasy; it’s all there in black and white.
    The problem with people like Driver is they put science on a pedestal (largely, I think, because they’re scientifically illiterate and assume scientists Know All and thus all agree, dissenters being kooks). This is naive. In reality there are politically and/or financially motivated scientists, like those at East Anglia University who have already blown credibility for themselves and severely damaged their position. Whereas some AGW/CC-leaning scientists are sincere, scientists like this obviously *can’t* be trusted.
    Note: The fact AGW/CC science vital to the UN’s case is so corrupted, itself constitutes evidence that man-made climate change is *not* actually happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    Redbaiter 2:17

    They are to busy Cannibalizing each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    # Redbaiter (9312) Says:
    April 2nd, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    ” You only have to look at comments on Facebook and Youtube to gather that. A very bad look for ACT.”

    Get a life. There are thousands of desperate socialist haters out there who will take any opportunity given to them to ridicule and denigrate ACT. You need to stand up to them, not be cowed by their smears. Hopeless. Where is your courage?

    Desperate socialist haters? What smears? Why bother?
    ACT is doing a fantastic job of ridiculing and denigrating itself.

    The leadership coup that failed, Rodney openly promoting a voting system that will remove ACT from parliament into oblivion and now Rick Giles talking such nonsense.

    It’s brilliant!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Rick Giles (4 comments) says:

    Thanks for the support and intelligent debate. Thanks for understanding David!

    ACT on Campus is not canabalising one another, at least not just yet. Some, especially Lukas on the phone last night, think the world really is coming to an end this week after all! And, that we can mitigate it by disowning the offending president.

    I’ve got some sympathy for that view and would like to listen to it. Problem is that it’s coupled with such abuse and anger and fear and threats of force and motions to force…take a chill pill Lukas et al!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” It’s brilliant!”

    Another boring mentally crippled extreme left winger with a perspective based solely (as it always is) on the unremitting bullshit of his mainstream media cronies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Another boring mentally crippled extreme right winger with a perspective based solely (as it always is) on the unremitting bullshit of his fringe rightwing web cronies.

    You should try arguments, red, not just repeating your hollow and meaningless mantra over and over again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Red – 1

    Eszett – 0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    So much fun watching the righties scrapping! Great video over at your site Clint – btw, what did you think of the Hitler cartoon on Andrew Williams’ Facebook page?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ACT are righties?? Haw haw- only an extremist leftist like you Toad could come to such an unwarranted and subjective conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Repton (769 comments) says:

    ACT are righties?? Haw haw

    Well, the left sure as hell doesn’t want them..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @ ‘baiter 4:50 pm

    You are participating in the scrap, are you not ‘baiter? I’ll admit to being an interested and amused spectator from the green swamp frog’s pond.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..He reminds me of a young John Boscowen ..”

    heh..!..talk about faintly damming in yr praise..eh..?

    and that hitler-tape is really funny..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Try listening to it…”

    we did..(snigger..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Toad: Let’s get one thing straight. The left have been extremely succesful in shutting down debate in NZ over the last few decades. So succesful, that the political discourse in NZ ranges from extreme left to (perhaps) centre left.

    There is practically no public debate that includes truly Conservative opinions. It is just verbotten. ACT are only centre left on any real political spectrum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..but I don’t think myself or anyone else can help you much…”

    precisely red..’cos you don;’t know what he is blathering on about either..

    what’s he studying..?

    ..economics..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    Yep, point taken ‘baiter. I guess a “truly Conservative” person is one who would answer “true” to every question in this survey frog blogged about this morning – with no evidential basis for any of the answers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..There are thousands of desperate socialist haters out there who will take any opportunity given to them to ridicule and denigrate …

    You need to stand up to them, not be cowed by their smears..”

    that’s you isn’t it red..?..aren’t you an admitted ‘socialist hater’..?

    and..um..!..didn’t you sneer at someone a moment ago on ‘literacy’-grounds..?

    hmm..??..

    oh petarded-one..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    giles..?

    could you have been more of a knob..?

    and..

    “..Problem is that it’s coupled with such abuse and anger..”

    um..!..no..!..hilarity and disbelief wd be the main reactions..

    utterly..utterly..brilliant..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” with no evidential basis for any of the answers.”

    Of course you wouldn’t know if there was or not Toad given that like every leftist, you firmly shut your ears and mind to any alternative viewpoints.

    But you know what should be even scarier for you loony leftists???

    28% of Democrats say their views are closer to the average member of the Tea Party then to Pelosi or congress.

    Mar 28, 2010

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and ya gotta luv those swirling hand gestures in yr response..

    have you ever tried out for the cheerleaders..?..there..giles..?

    i’d give it a go if i were you..

    you seem to have a natural flair for it..

    and please..please..do stand for act at the next election..eh..?

    we all need a good laugh..every now and then..

    and thank you..thank you..for being the source of that..

    ..for the last little while..

    got another video for us yet..?

    gotta maintain the momentum..eh..?

    how about..’the collected thoughts of rick giles’..?

    now..that you could ‘market’..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and..have you seen the hitler-tape yet..?

    do..!..it is very funny..!

    you are famous dude..!

    having a hitler-tape made about yr inane driviling..

    ..is a fame-benchmark..

    ..(and will likely be the highpoint of yr life..eh..?)

    shame it’s a giant piss-take..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    btw..what is the blog-alias you post under here..?..giles..?

    c’mon..!..keep the laughs coming..!

    eh..?

    you have a fan-base now..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    ‘baiter, as I have often said, I don’t give a shit about opinion surveys (other than to highlight ones that give ridiculous non-evidence based responses). It is what the evidence backs, rather than what people believe, that counts for me.

    My challenge is to get other people to understand that should count for them too. Of course there are a lot of fuckwit Democrats who invoke God or McCarthy or Palin or whoever to back their position. But it is all hero-worship of “strong” authoritarian figures, rather than consideration of the evidence as to what works and what does not to improve society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Paul Williams (876 comments) says:

    As tempting as it is to criticise Rick, I’ll not. I know I did a couple of interviews where I was overly earnest about this or that.

    What’s interesting however, is that Rick’s the talent TV use; where’s the big guns? Where’s the leaders of Act? Act’s politics have always seemed flakey but until recently, they did tend to at least front them, now they’re leaving it to undergrads?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” But it is all hero-worship of “strong” authoritarian figures,”

    Ha ha, thanks for the laff Toad. Name one leading member of the Greens, in that position because the party voted them there, who isn’t an authoritarian Nanny Stater who wants to use government to impose their will and beliefs upon the rest of the citizenry on some issue or other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..who wants to use government to impose their will and beliefs upon the rest of the citizenry on some issue or other…”

    um..!..isn’t that what all gummints do..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Phil, we’ll make a righty out of you yet!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    “um..!..isn’t that what all gummints do..?”

    By George i think hes got it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Phil, we’ll make a righty out of you yet! ”

    Good joke Gazz.

    Sad isn’t it that these leftist ghouls have such crippled perceptions they cannot think of government in any other way than as a means to force others to abide by their beliefs. So dwarfed mentally they cannot even begin to understand that others see governments role as a record keeper, defender of the realm, and a protector of individual and property rights, and nothing further.

    All the collectivists see government as is the means to herd us all up to and through the gates of their delusional socialist Nirvana.

    Just leave us the hell alone you contemptible little tyrants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    do you do amphetamines there..reddy..?

    it cd explain yr screeds of drivel..and yr rampant

    paranoia..eh..?

    ‘herding thru the gate of socialist utopias’..?..eh..?

    ..f.f.s..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    Not everybody is a deranged drug addict phool. Is this Rick the Dick turnip part of the big blouse team?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Phool 6:33 pm,

    Makes his own point by highlighting his own predilections.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Anthony (768 comments) says:

    Do you know Labour have been renamed School Teachers and Unionists Club – STUC in honour of being stuck at the mid thirties in the opinion polls and there they are likely to stay for the forseeable future – I’d say five years at least. Any of you lefty bleaters care to bet otherwise?

    However, we as a country have a long, long way to go if a person can’t argue that Edison hour would be better than Earth hour without being villified.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Anthony you are right – as a country New Zealand needs to be able to debate issues on their merit, without being shouted down like currently. Being called a climate change denier is one thing (I am a climate change denier) however I resent that term being derogatory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    It’s not shouting down when you point out major flaws in his so called “powerful” argument.

    What is Edison hour trying to prove? Use more and more energy and dam the consequences? I didn’t support Erath Hour but don’t see that it is doing anything bad, they probably have reasonable intentions. But a campaign to do the opposite seems very childish and counterproductive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Young Mr Giles clearly has no concept of the meaning of “symbolism.” His argument of the substitution effect as dispelling the symbolism is both unproven and a red herring. But we were all young once and good on him for fronting up and making a fool of himself.

    Having said that, I think that Earth Hour is largely redundant because governments do get it, 193 went to Copenhagen, but the politics of a global consensus on adaption and mitigation are currently insurmountable. Our future generations will suffer for that, but thems the breaks.

    I was amused by all the straw man arguments put up by Rick. For example no-one argues that the world is about to end. We and many thousands of species will be at risk or made extinct if it all goes that far, but I think sanity will prevail in the end. Even if I am wrong, the planet will continue on, orbiting the sun, and taking whatever comes its way in its stride.

    Perhaps a more intelligent species will arise and surpass us, as we did with the Neanderthals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 6:57 pm,

    Pete, let’s be clear – Earth Hour was entirely “childish and counterproductive”.
    Just more ‘feel good’ emotive propaganda crap!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    I see ‘Balanced’ Luc has arrived with more pearls of wisdom – must be a sign from the Lord for me to make my departure. Night all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac

    When all the science proves the point, of course being a denier becomes derogatory (just how did “tory” sneak in to that term, anyway?)

    Go to PNAS and search for climate change and find all the articles proving your thesis. I can tell you now, you won’t find any. The scientist who does come up with an alternative explanation that fits all the data will indeed be a hero – unless his or her prognosis is even worse than we currently face.

    Now wouldn’t that be a fine thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    gazzamaniac said: (I am a climate change denier) however I resent that term being derogatory.

    It should be derogatory, gazza, because you have no empirical evidence for your denial. You deniers cheery-pick the odd small mistake in climate science and then choose to deny the whole of it on that basis. If you look at the big picture of empirical climate data from around the world, our planet is warming and if you look at the quantum physics, it is the bombardment of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by infra-red radiation that is making a substantial contribution to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Fairfacts Media (371 comments) says:

    Yes, it was a car crash of an interview and Oliver Driver is a most smug lefty.
    But we should be praising Rick for his youthful enthusiasm.
    He appears almost alone in wanting to take the message to the masses about the usefulness or otherwise of Earth Hour.
    We saw the blog messages but nothing made the MSM. Just Rick Giles.
    Where were the more senior and experienced figures? They were conspicious by their absence.
    Obviously Rick needs media training and I am sure he will be getting it now.
    All those on the right do need help in this, if only to be better prepared for any media lefty like Driver.
    AoC members need to be wary about their actions now.
    It’s no good them claiming Rick is an embarassment if they attract more attention on their activities by trying to remove him.
    Media training for its members will achieve far more than an internal civil war.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Scott (1,707 comments) says:

    To me what stands out is the leftist perspective of one Oliver Driver. He “believes” in climate change-for many on the left it is a substitute religion- and he will not hear any argument to the contrary.

    And his attitude is so smart-aleck. No wonder TV3 has no viewers in the morning. Redbaiter is exactly right- we just do not have any centre right opinion in our mainstream media. It is either leftish ( Paul Holmes, TV1 news and TV3 news) , Definitely left (John Campbell, Russell Brown) or la la land left ( I think Oliver Driver qualifies).

    Fox News NZ- are you out there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    toad where is big bruv or is this him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Fairfacts Media (371 comments) says:

    And that’s before we even got on the scam of AGW.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @Scott 7:33 pm

    To me what stands out is the leftist perspective of one Oliver Driver. He “believes” in climate change…

    No-one sensible “believes” in climate change. Science is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of evidence, and all the evidence, both theoretical an empirical, suggests it is happening. I understand something of the science (both quantum physics and climatology – studied both of them to Stage II uni)) but I am not an expert in either. I trust what the scientists say about the bits I don’t understand. That is different from “belief”, which seem to mean that a few arguments based on misrepresented or cherry-picked facts put up by wingnuts like Monckton and Lawson, who have no background in the relevant sciences, is enough to make you a denier/skeptic.

    @d4j 7:34 pm

    Just fuck off you bigoted paranoid piece of shit. Despite me being a political “outsider” on what is a right wing blog, I treat all others who comment here with rational responses and respect, however provoked I may be by those such as Hurf Durf, Murray, and Redbaiter. You are the only person I abuse on this or any other blog d4j. Can’t you see why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    “It is a matter of evidence, and all the evidence, both theoretical an empirical, suggests it is happening.”

    How can you claim something so emphatically and then at the end slip in the word “suggests”?

    The truth is that you cannot point to one single shred of proof Toad, you know this and the left knows this.

    The entire climate change con has been fabricated to usher in massive wealth transfer, the fact that so many holes have been found in this con in recent months has only increased your desperation.

    The wheels are falling off Toad, all over the world people are realising they have been conned by you lot, the end result will be that nobody will take you seriously, personally, I cannot wait for that day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    does he remind you of a young you there..fairfacts..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..The entire climate change con has been fabricated to usher in massive wealth transfer,..”

    no no..u r confused…that rightwing/reaganite/thatcherite revolution was the..

    .. ‘con (that) has been fabricated to usher in massive wealth transfer,..”

    ..eh..?

    and it has been very successful in those aims..

    and that is what we have to undo/redress…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Toad you and your slimy ilk are full of it. Managed to watch a bit of parliament last week and the two bobs (Nat socialists) were trying to defend NIWA, what fucking tossers. They are saying records have been keep for 130 years and MY GOD there appears to be a temperature rise of 1 degree C over that time. These pricks like yourself want to take vast amounts of cash off the people. Fuck if you are going to rob someone you should have the balls to say so. To me ACT has become a huge disappointment, somewhere along the line they have lost their voice and direction. Mr Giles may not be Gods gift to tele but he’s not a diseased socialist tosser like Driver. This country’s biggest problem is we don’t have enough people calling out the tossers like your good self and your melon brothers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “This country’s biggest problem is we don’t have enough people calling out the tossers like your good self and your melon brothers.”

    Damn right. Double damn right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Mr Giles may not be Gods gift to tele ..”

    i wd like to nominate that for the short-list for ‘understatment-of-the-year’..

    ..eh..?

    phil9whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Caleb (467 comments) says:

    the northern hemishpere winter is just a blip?

    we will have to leave that out of the long term averages…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    Phool

    “and that is what we have to undo/redress…”

    Why do you say “we”?

    What right do you have to take the rewards and assets of those who work for a living?, you contribute nothing to our society yet you still seek to ingratiate yourself with the decent working folk who are desperately trying to make more of themselves.

    Next time you meet one of these people you claim to care so much about please let them know that you are a parasite and have no intention of ever getting a job.

    I would love to see how they react.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    toad- take a chill pill you silly old twit. Get some help toady.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    So philu what are you Gods gift to ???????????????? Sweet piss all I would say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Good ol’ SSB

    All the world’s climate scientists are wrong, wrong, wrong, because of one temp gauge in Hokitika! Or one sea level gauge in Hong Kong.

    Yeah right.

    And SSB, one degree may not seem like much, but its enough to cause significant, but not dangerous, climate change. More worrying is that the trend is all up. Furthermore, science shows that the Arctic amplifies and predicts changes at lower latitudes, and the indicators are all bad!

    Paleoclimatology shows that in the past, given certain conditions we are now approaching, tipping points are reached that can result in one metre of sea level rise every 20 years. Think about it.

    I just think the deniers are actually so overwhelmed by the challenge climate change represents that they just can’t face the reality.

    I wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole with them!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Deniers” is another cowardly attempt by the left to push anyone who disagrees with them into an imaginary hate group. They cannot tolerate or deal with what is a mere difference of opinion, so seek to separate anyone who differs into socially unacceptable groupings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    toad how is your blood pressure? Give big blouse a call and then jump into the fetid swamp. What a Rick you lot are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    caleb

    If we look back a century, we find cold anomalies that dwarf current ones.  Figure 1 shows 
    photos of people walking on Niagara Falls in 1911.  Such an extreme cold snap is unimaginable today.  
    About a decade earlier, in February 1899, temperature fell to ‐2°F in Tallahassee, Florida, ‐9°F in Atlanta, 
    Georgia ‐30°F in Erasmus, Tennessee, ‐47°F in Camp Clark, Nebraska, and ‐61°F in Fort Logan, Montana.  
    The Mississippi River froze all the way to New Orleans, discharging ice into the Gulf of Mexico. 
      As we will show, climate is changing, especially during the past 30 years.  The changes are 
    perceptible, even though average temperature change is smaller than weather fluctuations.  The answer 
    to the simple question: “How come it’s so damned cold” turns out to be simple: “Because it’s winter.” 

    Get your head out of the sand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    Have you finsihed the washing up yet Lucy? hi toad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    RB, disagreeing with the scientific consensus based on the data is opinion.

    Sadly, there is no countervailing view based on the data to the mainstream consensus.

    People like you are like the pus in a boil, waiting to excreted into their own fetid pool of poison.

    (How’s that? Am I catching on?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. pareto (23 comments) says:

    rick giles was in my econs classes, to be honest he is full of hot air, I remember sitting in a tutorial or lecture, and he was busy debating with the lecturer, drifting away from the lesson. But hey he is world famous in New Zealand now, his face is gonna be on Mr. Vintage tees, so big ups to him on that point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    D4J

    Just heading there now. The missus has baby on tit, so no help there!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    Good man Lucy don’t tell toad ’cause he will blow another green boil and cover us all with fetid poison.
    big blouse will clean it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Shit Luc what a great disappointment you weren’t on the inland that disappeared under the waves in the bay of Bengal. That would have made your day. And Luc you two bob one degree ISN’T much but it’s not about saving the world is it. It’s about the advancement of fucking socialism come communism and the clowns that think they can tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Toad

    You deniers cheery-pick the odd small mistake in climate science and then choose to deny the whole of it on that basis.

    No I don’t. I also studied earth sciences, physics and chemistry at university (I have a degree in geology) and I have read enough literature to know that climate science is far from settled, and it is my opinion that the issue has been hijacked by those on the left of politics as another excuse for robbing the middle class.

    Science is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of evidence, and all the evidence, both theoretical an empirical, suggests it is happening

    The first half of that statement is correct, science is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of evidence. Sadly for your argument, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that any climate change is not because of carbon emissions. The fact that CO2 is reaching its saturation point as a useful greenhouse gas, that water vapour in the atmosphere is a far more efficient greenhouse gas (and this changes hourly), the 30 year cycles in the earth’s orbit that happen to match medium, long and paleo term climate trends, sunspots; basically I am pointing out that there are many other valid models for modelling the changing climate. That is before you start to think about some of the holes in the data supporting man made climate change, the incorrect conclusions and the fabricated evidence.

    Here’s an incorrect conclusion: part of the 2001 IPCC report uses tree rings as an indicator of temperature. No biologist in the world would say that tree rings indicate temperature alone – plants grow best in wet conditions not in hot conditions; one only has to think about Australia and its lack of woodlands to know that, or even just look outside after a week of wet weather. This incorrect conclusion has been incorporated into a document that is meant to be written by professionals to guide policy makers.

    I agree with what Rick Giles has to say – I wrote on my facebook that I was going to turn on an extra light for Earth Hour, however I forgot as it really is insignificant. Plus I was busy at work as I was working nightshift.
    With a bit of coaching, I think he could do well as a spokesman for something. Oliver Driver and Phil Goff should know when to shut up – Giles came across as a well meaning amateur, Driver and Goff came across as dickheads scoffing at someone who they think they are better than. And quite frankly it is the only good thing that anyone in the ACT party apart from Sir Douglas has done since the election. Pull your finger out, ACT, and get this guy trained to deal with people like Oliver Driver, and you might stand a chance of staying alive at the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    D4J

    Does it take you long to think up those withering burst of literary genius?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. dad4justice (7,790 comments) says:

    Go away coward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    come on guys, lets keep it clean. Take it to the GD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    Three minutes to come up with that D4J?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac

    You obviously spent too much time in Shadows Bar (The Kiwi Tavern was all the rage in my day!)

    Only one of (from memory, 11) the proxies in the surface temperature graph was based on tree rings. And you are just wrong about tree rings not being a valid proxy.

    And once again, you attack just one aspect of hundreds, if not thousands, now, lines of scientific enquiry.

    Why don’t I see your name in lights in the PNAS or Science or Nature, if you are so brilliant?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Luc –
    I work in the discipline of exploration geology, not research geology. I also didn’t say that I was brilliant – I said that I have read enough of the literature to know that the science is not settled. I think that’s a reasonable conclusion to draw. I also highly doubt any work that I do will end up in Nature, as I am not left leaning.
    Like most students I did spend a bit of time making a dick of myself in the pub at uni, just ask anyone who has watched me (try to) dance, or have an intelligent discussion while intoxicated. I have never been to Shadows Bar, and even if I had, it’s hardly relevant to this discussion is it?. Or are you inferring that I must be drunk if I disagree with you, as any sober person would surely agree with your logical argument?

    I ask you how I am wrong about tree rings being based on proxy. I am here to debate issues, and I have provided some evidence to back my argument, which you have not (and sadly this is all too common here). If you like I can provide more examples of incorrect conclusions and methods.
    Direct measurement of surface temperature is inaccurate, due to the “thermal islands” around cities. These are corrected (fudged) to account for this, however the fudge is generally more than the increase in temperature that is trying to be proved. They are not statistically relevant, and indeed their method may be invalid as shown with New Zealand’s own NIWA data.
    Another one is direct measurement of sea temperature. Up until the 1990s this was generally done with the “bucket over the side” method. Today it is done directly, using electronic probes in water that has been used to cool the motor. These might be fudged to account for it, however now there’s a bit of doubt present about their validity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Clint Heine (1,563 comments) says:

    Toad – you are pretty dumb, even for a leftie. I simply reposted a You Tube clip from the Facebook page, that was created by one of your mates. By saying that, Rick is worth ten of you – even if I disagree 100% with what his sentiments were for this debacle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    gazzamaniac

    Typical denier bullshit.

    Why don’t you try out your theories on James Hansen – he’s easy to email and he will tell you how satellites work.

    Or Real Climate, like Falafulu Fisi did and got shown up as a 101er.

    You have provided no evidence, just propaganda – sweeping assertions – which just happen to be false, in fact.

    To assert that real scientists are unaware of your points simply boggles the mind, especially as they have repeatedly debunked these denialist theories.

    193 governments at Copenhagen – think about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    “193 governments at Copenhagen ”

    Yeah, how many tin pot nations looking for a hand out and leaving the place highly pissed off because the lottery had been called off?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Anthony (768 comments) says:

    So what if the earth is warming? The earth has been warming since the ‘mini ice age’ but there is no conclusive proof that the warming is man made. This is just the latest over hyped crisis that the media and lefties are trying to scare us with.

    I remember how everyone in large cities was going to have to wear a gas mask because the pollution would get so bad, how all the forests were going to die from acid rain, how many of us were going to die from a worldwide pandemic, how the price of oil was going hit $200 a barrel by the year 2000. Can anyone else think of a few more?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. big bruv (13,311 comments) says:

    Anthony

    SARS, Y2K, Bird Flu…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Anthony, the proof is conclusive.

    I know its not for the faint hearted, but face the facts and be a better man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    how all the forests were going to die from acid rain,

    Funny that you should mention that, that was averted because a tax was put on SO2 emissions, which reduced the emissions and the acid rain.

    Wow, science was right, governments intervened and the outcome was positive.
    A very good example of how it should work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Clint Heine (1,563 comments) says:

    Wow Luc, you would have been fucking useful in Salem during those witch trials. I can see you now, screaming denier at those who you think is unclean because they don’t adhere to your religion.

    193 Govts at Copenhagen and nothing was achieved…. apart from hypocrisy from all those fools flying there for a few smiley photos and hand shaking. Wow. You were most certainly sucked in there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. BlairM (2,287 comments) says:

    Rick embarrassed himself on TV just once.

    Oliver Driver does it every weekday.

    I know who I find more entertaining.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Luc

    Typical denier bullshit.

    and

    You have provided no evidence, just propaganda – sweeping assertions – which just happen to be false, in fact.

    To assert that real scientists are unaware of your points simply boggles the mind, especially as they have repeatedly debunked these denialist theories.

    If you’re trying to say my argument is invalid, please provide some evidence to the contrary, otherwise all you’re just stating “I think my argument is so powerful, it’s not necessary to talk about it,” which you were criticising somebody else for doing further up the thread. I have provided some evidence to support my argument, and I am also trying to be polite.

    No argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about. Including any argument related to climate science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen,

    I asked a question at RealClimate in solid state physics not climate science which was related to the measurement of atmospheric CO2. To say that we can differentiate which CO2 molecules that originated from land and which ones that originated from fossil fuel is borderline guesswork. This is an undeniable fact because to be able to differentiate them is a violation of Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein quantum statistics. The answer given by a warmist there Ray Ladbury when he explained that, the technology exists using radioactive labelling. That was not an explanation was it? The question was not a 101-type question; it was an Einstein type question, because none of them at RealClimate fully understood the depth of my question. Remember, their (RC members) understanding of complex models (except perhaps Schmidt himself who has a specific domain of understanding) are primitive, limited to descriptive statistics (i.e., high school stuff). Simply saying that our current technology exists today to measure atmospheric CO2 level and not explain it in terms of Fermi and Bose quantum theory violation was an attempt to bypass/evade theoretical hurdle in order not to contradict AGW religion. I followed up with a comment after Ray’s reply but it wasn’t posted, and you know why? RC is heavy modulated. Roy Spencer has raised the same issue in recent years. His reasoning is different from mine. I doubt Roy understands quantum statistics to base his argument on that, but my reasoning comes straight from first principle.

    RC is for retard like you to go and read which they simplified information the likes of you. I get my information straight from the scientific journals, because that’s what I bloody do for a living. I scour research journals (mainly in my domain) to look for interesting concepts/ideas for possible commercial implementation/adoption. Reading climate related journals is a bit easier than reading technology journals as signal processing, control systems, machine learning, econo-physics, stastistical mechanics and so forth? WHY? The math in climate related journals are below par in complexity to other branches that I have just stated. In fact you see climate researchers use algorithms that are old hat in other disciplines but appeared new to them (i.e., to climate researchers). Let me give you an example. The algorithm, NTF (Nonnegative Tensor Factorization) used in the following climate data analysis research paper has been known to researchers/users (such as me) from the domains I have listed above for about a decade. It is only last year (2009) that the existence of the algorithm has been made known to the climate research community as shown below:

    Abstract:
    ======
    Increasingly large datasets acquired by NASA for global climate studies demand larger computation memory and higher CPU speed to mine out useful and revealing information. While boosting the CPU frequency is getting harder, clustering multiple lower performance computers thus becomes increasingly popular. This prompts a trend of parallelizing the existing algorithms and methods by mathematicians and computer scientists. In this paper, we take on the task of parallelizing the Nonnegative Tensor Factorization (NTF) method, with the purposes of distributing large datasets into each cluster node and thus reducing the demand on a single node, blocking and localizing the computation at the maximal degree, and finally minimizing the memory use for storing matrices or tensors by exploiting their structural relationships. Numerical experiments were performed on a NASA global sea surface temperature dataset and result factors were analyzed and discussed.

    Title: A Parallel Nonnegative Tensor Factorization Algorithm for Mining Global Climate Data

    Take note of the authors. They’re not climate scientists. The paper is also published in a computing journal. Does that tell you something? Or you’re too dumb to understand that us physicists/mathematicians/engineers/computing-scientists can learn anything in complex analytics without being trained in that field?

    NTF is not domain specific. It can be used in anything that deals with pattern recognition. If you wondered where else NTF has been applied, then look at the following paper (in section 3):

    Title : Social Media Analytics: Channelling the Power of the Blogosphere for Marketing Insight

    I was contracted to implement the NTF algorithm for an Auckland internet company (operating internationally) for their online sentiment detection system and this was 4 years ago. One thing that I have to guarantee you idiot, is that although I don’t R&D in climate science, reading their research journals is like reading the NZ Herald for me (because the math is non-existent or too simple). There is no math in those climate research journals that I don’t know. I know them all and sometimes I see that they use inappropriate math to complex problem, e.g. : the hockey-stick, which Mann et al, used PCA (principal component analysis), but it is a linear algorithm, where climate system is non-linear. I emailed Mann about 3 or 4 years ago, letting him know a variety of multivariate non-linear algorithms to use such as Kernel-PCA, LLE (locally linear embedding), HEM (hessian eigen-map) and a few others. The fact is that he didn’t know or aware of these techniques. Look up the various journals of machine learning where you find that these algorithms had been published there in mid to late 1990s. You can ask those analytical techniques at RealClimate and I can guarantee you that none of them would know anything about those.

    Just a word for dumbfuck like you Luc. Search my name at RealClimate to see what topics that I have debated with the RC warmists there and you would be very surprised that some of my points that I raised over there were beyond the comprehension of those warmist residents. As a commenter at Ian Wishart TBR blog, physicists can study climate topics easily but the reciprocal can’t be applied (i.e., climate scientists trying to study physics). But on the other hand, climate scientists can do gender studies easily. That comment was right on the mark. I can study climate science seriously if I want to, but there are more interesting things going on in other fields (ones I have listed above) which is commercially rewarding than studying climate science which is basically boring/uninteresting, no commercial value, too dumb (i.e., the math are too simplistic which doesn’t stimulate the neurons in my brain). Just ask Jim Salinger from NIWA if he has got a job yet? I mean, a person with a climate science qualification, what can you do with it? Bugger all.

    I get involved in interesting fields myself (knowledge-wise, research-wise, commercial-wise, business-wise) and as a natural outcome of that, is that I can bloody understand climate research publications easily, like a piece of cake without studying the field formally.

    This has been a long reply, but it is worth it for me to debunk dumbfuck idiots like you who have probably done gender studies at university who knows nothing about various domains of analytics (applicable to climate science) and thought that only guys that study climate science are the only ones that’s knowledgeable in the domain. Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician and he never studied physics although he now regards himself as a climate scientist. I could do the same thing as Gavin because of my knowledge/background in numerical modelling, but focusing on a single domain is quite boring. I like roaming in a variety of domains which is more fun.

    Anyway, Rick Giles did a good job in his interview.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Good point there Falafulu Fisi.

    If you’re doing some research on a topic, it might pay to ensure your method is valid by talking with an expert in that field (in your example, a computer statistician, in mine a tree biologist, or even an arbourist). By its very nature, climate science requires a “jack of all trades” attitude, however that means that there can be no mastery of any discipline. It also means that without any proper checks, it can all go horribly wrong and incorrect conclusions can be drawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Your turn Luc……Must be a real bastard trying to argue with someone who can call you out on all the shit you spout.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    The thing that pisses me off in the whole AGW debate is that idiots (Luc, Russell Brown, Gareth Renowden and others) who know nothing about science and how its related to other fields, labelling other experts as deniers on the basis that they’re not climate scientists. What’s missing from their brain dead neurons is that climate science is an analytic domain, meaning that the understanding of a non-climate science professional such as a mathematician/physicist/electronic-engineer/computer-scientist/statistician is equivalent to those who do climate numerical modelling even though the non-climate science professional hasn’t studied climate science formally.

    Had these idiots studied physics, mathematics, electrical engineering, computer science, machine learning & artificial intelligence and so forth, they would have realized that the analytical techniques used by climate scientists are the same. So, the difference in their knowledge (climate scientists & non-scientists) is largely descriptive (where the non-climate science professional can read that part and understand in less or no time at all), however in terms of numerical modelling, the knowledge between a climate scientist (analytical ones – those who devise models) and one from a sister or related field as mentioned above is the same or the non-climate scientists are more knowledgeable than climate scientists. I’ll give another example here just to show my point.

    The following paper, which was published last year (2009) in the International Journal of Climatology describes the use of an algorithm (NNMF – non negative matrix factorisation) that is widely popular in technical computing, artificial intelligence, search engine, speech processing, image recognition, electronic signal de-noising in telecommunication networks and almost endless domain of applications. Now it is being applied in climate data analysis only recently (last year). The NNFM algorithm is one of the state-of-the-art algorithms available today in data-analytics because it overcomes the limitations of similar previous multivariate methods used by analysts including climate scientists. The NNMF is superior than the PCA used by Mann, et al in their hockey-stick model.

    Abstract:

    As the atmospheric system is characterized by highly complex interactions between a large number of physical variables, it is a challenging task for researchers to break up the complicated structures into a few significant modes of variability.

    An innovative technique, called Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF), developed to provide a reduced-dimensional representation of large-scale non-negative data and to extract underlying features, is introduced as a tool for meteorological applications. The method is used to decompose space-time meteorological fields into spatial patterns and associated time indices in order to advance our knowledge of dominant atmospheric processes. For the Northern Hemisphere the 500 hPa geopotential field together with sea level pressure (SLP) are analysed using an up-to-date NMF algorithm as well as a helpful method of NMF initialization based on Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). Several NMF patterns correspond to the variations identified by traditional EOF analysis, such as the East Atlantic and the Pacific/North American Pattern. For the North Atlantic Oscillation the NMF identifies sub-patterns: The positive phase is associated with systems of pressure variation over the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic, respectively, the negative phase resembles the EOF pattern.

    As the NMF patterns not only represent variability, like EOF patterns, but also are fractions of the total observed values, we demonstrate for a location near Nikolski, Alaska, the temporal development of the geopotential as a superposition of NMF-factors.

    Title : Non-negative Matrix Factorization for the identification of patterns of atmospheric pressure and geopotential for the Northern Hemisphere

    I haven’t read the paper yet (since I’ve just requested the author via email to send me a free copy), but I know the algorithm inside out, because I had implemented 9 variants of it for commercial software applications. The variants only differ in their performances (error rates) where some are low (better performance) and some are high (worse performance). There are more than 20 variants of this algorithm that are available in the research literatures today. This algorithm is still largely unknown in the climate science community even though this has been known to us (researchers & technology implementers) for almost 11 years, because the algorithm was first published in Nature journal in 1999 for an application in face-recognition. Since, its first publication, researchers (mainly from machine learning, computer vision, data-mining communities) have improved it, with new variants that have been invented and published in various computing journals.

    What’s my point here? Well, someone who is well versed in the NNMF algorithm but have not studied climate science, can easily read the paper above and understand the model, even though he/she had never heard of the main concepts (descriptive part of the publication) described in there. It wouldn’t take long for this non-climate scientist (but an expert in NNFM) to learn those descriptive climate concepts. This is the reason why I am pissed off with these idiots. I am pissed off because of their lack of understanding.

    As an aside, the following papers (can be found by Google) show the application of NNFM in other domains.

    #1) “Analysis of Financial Data Using Non-Negative Matrix Factorization”

    - Analysis of equity movements in the financial markets

    #2) “A non-negative matrix tri-factorization approach to sentiment classification with lexical prior knowledge”

    - Online sentiment detection/classification. Sentiment classification refers to the task of automatically identifying whether a given piece of text expresses positive or negative opinion towards a subject at hand. The proliferation of user-generated web content such as blogs, discussion forums and online review sites has made it possible to perform large-scale mining of public opinion.

    #3) “Introducing a weighted non-negative matrix factorization for image classification”

    - Use for image recognition application

    #4) “SPEECH DENOISING USING NONNEGATIVE MATRIX FACTORIZATION WITH PRIORS”

    - A technique for denoising speech using nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) in combination with statistical speech and noise models.

    #5) “Non-Negative Matrix Factorization for Diabetes II Metabolic Profiling Analysis”

    - Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra of biological fluids contain rich biochemical information about the metabolic status of an organism. However, spectra interpretation is still an open problem. In this paper, a novel approach, non- negative matrix factorization (NMF), was introduced to reveal the spectral difference between healthy and diabetes II human plasma.

    #6) “Fast (computer network) intrusion detection based on a non-negative matrix factorization model”

    - In this paper, we present an efficient fast anomaly intrusion detection model incorporating a large amount of data from various data sources. A novel method based on non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) is presented to profile program and user behaviors of a computer system.

    #7) “Nonnegative Matrix Factorization for EEG Signal Classification”

    - Signal processing application. Nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) is a powerful feature extraction method for nonnegative data. This paper applies NMF to feature extraction for Electroencephalogram (EEG) signal classification.

    #8) “Email Surveillance Using Non-negative Matrix Factorization”

    - Text classification & topic clustering. In this study, we apply a non-negative matrix factorization approach for the extraction and detection of concepts or topics from electronic mail messages. For the publicly released Enron electronic mail collection, we encode sparse term-by-message matrices and use a low rank non-negative matrix factorization algorithm to preserve natural data non-negativity and avoid subtractive basis vector and encoding interactions present in techniques such as principal component analysis.

    and I can go on and on and on.

    Anyone who is familiar with NNMF can read any bloody climate science research publication and understand it in less time, because climate scientists don’t invent new algorithms. They (climate scientists) do borrow algorithms that had been invented in other domains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Rick Giles (4 comments) says:

    “Toad – you are pretty dumb, even for a leftie. I simply reposted a You Tube clip from the Facebook page, that was created by one of your mates.”

    No, I gotta say that I found you very offensive doing that, Clint. For a mate that’s really low, and to be telling all that I’m ditched from your association. Major flip-flop when things got hot. I’d like to see you get rid of that blog post and apologise.

    Rick,
    President AoC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. ropata (117 comments) says:

    Falafulu,
    One mistake that brilliant minds make is to underestimate the intelligence of everybody else. I suppose nobody here has your expertise in quantum mechanics and computer modelling. But outside, you know, that place where those dumb non computer genuises go, there is real change happening. Oceans are becoming more acidic due to carbonic acid. Civil engineers have to work with the real world, for example in Northland rainfall is 3 or 4 times the volume of what it was 50 years ago and “100 year” floods have become more common. If you’ve half the brilliance you claim you will know that physicist Lawrence Krauss and other scientists whose brains are at least the equal of yours, are not part of some weird conspiracy, but a broad and diverse range of independent researchers who are simply reporting FACTS and EVIDENCE, something your lengthy diatribe seems to lack.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. emmess (1,371 comments) says:

    I haven’t read all the comments but has nobody realised that there is virtually no difference between the following two statements

    I think my argument is so powerful, it’s not necessary to talk about it.

    The science is settled, the time for talking is over, the time for action is now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Clint Heine (1,563 comments) says:

    Peter McCaffrey is the president of AOC, Rick. The stuff I posted were from the facebook page that you have openly endorsed as your “fan page”. I’m sure you see the humour in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    ropata –
    sure the climate is changing, nobody disputes that (well, I’m sure somebody does). What I am disputing is that it’s caused by carbon emissions. There are plenty of other factors aside from carbon emissions that can help explain climate change, including changes in the Earth’s orbit (the Australian climate has a 30 year cycle that is well documented, caused by a wobble in the Earths orbit). That’s why there have been big floods recently – and the Murray-Darling system is now no longer in drought, which was one of the key arguments from local global warming proponents (and the Federal government who wanted to stake their claim on its management and remove it from the states).
    A big problem is that global warming can no longer be discussed without it becoming political. That is not the right atmosphere for scientific discussion, as you inevitably get a political, rather than scientific answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. ropata (117 comments) says:

    Gazz,
    Opinions are like arses. Yours is worthless unless it is published in a reputable scientific journal. In independently published opinions, all national or international science academies and scientific societies (except 1) admit “that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Here is IPENZ:

    Human activities have increased the concentration of these atmospheric greenhouse gases, and although the changes are relatively small, the equilibrium maintained by the atmosphere is delicate, and so the effect of these changes is significant. The world’s most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 370 parts per million, an increase of around 30%.

    On the basis of available data, climate scientists are now projecting an average global temperature rise over this century of 2.0 to 4.5ºC. This compared with 0.6ºC over the previous century – about a 500% increase… This could lead to changing, and for all emissions scenarios more unpredictable, weather patterns around the world, less frost days, more extreme events (droughts and storm or flood disasters), and warmer sea temperatures and melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise.

    … Professional engineers commonly deal with risk, and frequently have to make judgments based on incomplete data. The available evidence suggests very strongly that human activities have already begun to make significant changes to the earth’s climate, and that the longterm risk of delaying action is greater than the cost of avoiding/minimising the risk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    Ropata – keep the insults to the GD thanks. I’m also pretty sure that no scientific journal would publish my arse, though if they started publishing the arses of some good looking girls, I’m sure their readership would increase.
    There are plenty of scientists that disagree with your opinion, and the opinion of those science academies and the IPENZ. Augie Auer was probably the most prominent in NZ, and there are hundreds overseas.
    I’d also look at not using references from Wikipedia – it’s a handy repository of information, however it does have a leftist bias on political issues like climate change (note that it’s no longer called global warming – why is that?).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. ropata (117 comments) says:

    Gazz,
    A *few* isolated and politically influenced scientists deny AGW, not ‘plenty’. The overwhelming consensus by the EXPERTS is that human activity is significantly affecting the global climate. The thing about science is that unlike politics there is no debate as such, it is based on measurable evidence and testable hypotheses. The general public, media and politicians cannot handle the fact that in science, a model is either correct or not. You can debate politics till the cows come home but the science speaks for itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    How can evidence be testable when it’s not made public using UK freedom of information laws?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. ropata (117 comments) says:

    There is this amazing thing on the internet called ‘google’ that should resolve your problem finding evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. ropata (117 comments) says:

    Also, you don’t test evidence, you test hypotheses. Are you being paid by an oil company perchance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    No. I love it how if I don’t think AGW is an issue, I must be on the payroll of big oil, as if only irrational people or those with a vested interest could possibly disagree with it.
    As for the science – if you want people to believe your hypothesis, based on a computer algorithm, you should really release the dataset that you’re using so that it can be scruitinised for validity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. ropata (117 comments) says:

    You did say before that you’re an exploratory geologist. And the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the one exception to the list of scientific bodies that admit to AGW. Oh and is this the dataset that you’re talking about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    I’m not a member of the AAPG as I am in the coal industry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    OK I’ll concede that. I still think that there are a lot of holes in the AGW argument, and there are also other (natural) explanations to explain climate change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    BTW ropata, you’re the only person on this thread who has posted any supporting evidence for their argument. Full credit, keep it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Ropata, here is my favourite physics test for the uninformed (including certain scientists). Watch the following YouTube video about the well-known double-slit-experiment and tell me what is the cause/s, that make the particles (electrons in this case) to go thru (as agreed by most physicists) the 2 slit-holes at once. This experiment epitomizes the whole concept of quantum mechanics. Forget about the subject itself, whether you know about it or not. The point here, which is commonsense if in fact the agreement of the math and observations truly establish physical reality (i.e., causation) .Late great Richard Feynman (Nobel Laureate Physicist) once quoted, that if anyone can come up with a theory that explains the double-slit observations (facts) which is causal, then that theory should replace quantum mechanics.

    Dr Quantum – Double Slit Experiment

    Here is a hint. The math (wave-mechanics-equations) agrees with observations, i.e., the mathematical prediction say exactly what is going to happen on the screen.

    My question is. Is it enough for an agreement of theory and observation to say definitively that reality is established?

    Core disciplines of natural science and physics (such as the double-slit experiment quoted above) is something can be tested which is repeatable, while testing of theories about climate dynamics is not repeatable. This means that all we do is fit past data to climate models. You don’t repeat this experiment because you can’t use the whole earth as a live lab. One thing has emerged out in recent years. The climate models are not consistent. The models work on this domain but useless on a wider domain. This rings the alarm bell.

    Can someone say that quantum mechanics (QM) is wrong? Yep, I am in this group of sceptics about it. WHY? Because QM is philosophically inconsistent (contradiction). Forget about the excellent agreement between observations and theory, because that is irrelevant to establishing reality, since we know (commonsense) that a material object cannot be at different points in space at once or simultaneously (such as in point A and point B at the same time). Note that the double-slit experiment above has been repeated with atoms, super-atoms (a cluster of 10s of thousands of condensate atoms) and the interference pattern is still observed.

    The whole argument about AGW rests primarily on the math and I REPEAT again here. The argument is about the math and not about observations. Observations are useless without theoretical numerical models.

    I challenged one of the contributors to RealClimate here (Dr. James Annan), but the guy didn’t understand anything about climate feedback control theory. Control theory is one of my domains of interests in numerical modelling and this is the point I am trying to make. Guys like Gareth Renowden will worship climate expert like Dr. Annan, but to me, Annan is nothing more like a climate data collector. He goes out there to the real world and collects data, but it is knowledgeable guys like me (including Dr. Gavin Schmidt) who develop models and apply to the data and see if there is agreement. Do you see where I am coming from? I don’t underestimate the intelligence of others. I do undermine others who wear the coat of a climate scientist but really all they do is collect climate data. My scepticism is based on my understanding of numerical models, not because there was a conspiracy as in ClimateGate. I don’t think IMO that climateGate had anything to do with validating the science or not, but some people do think that way and I am not one of those. I argue based on science.

    Now, what is your opinion Ropata about if quantum mechanic’s foundation/interpretation is wrong or not (based on the double-slit shown above)? Don’t worry if you understand the theory or not. Just say if the observation (which agrees with the theory) represents true physical reality? Material objects can be at 2 different points in space at once?

    As I said, you don’t have to know QM theory, just make an educated guess and say, if indeed QM is correct or not. The other point to note is that QM’s predictions is superior because it uncovers nature itself (via pure mathematical predictions) way before any experimental confirmation is made in the lab, e.g.: Quarks existence was predicted in about 20 years in advance (via mathematics) before their indirect observation in the lab, but you get what I mean here.

    So, what’s your take Ropata? Is QM theory correct or not? Can we say that it is a useful theory (i.e., it gives correct predictions) but it can’t represent the true nature of physical reality? There is nothing wrong with saying that the theory is useful but may be we can say with a bit of scepticism that what it represents is not true physical reality as the numerical models have told us that they should be. I await your answer to my question.

    PS : I can show you an analysis (a published paper) that throws some doubts about the correctness of QM. This doesn’t mean that QM is useless, because that is a completely different issue to establishing reality. Newton physics/mechanics was false and not represent the true nature of reality. However, Newtonian is an approximation to QM & relativity, meaning that these 2 theories are reduced to Newtonians. Get this straight; approximation is a completely different thing to physical reality itself? You can have an excellent theory that works well on this specific narrow domain (approximation) but useless in a wider domain is not a true representative of physical reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. ropata (117 comments) says:

    Falafulu,
    I think most physicists consider electromagnetic radiation to be a massless “probability wave” of pure energy that either reflects or collapses to a packet of heat energy when it hits matter. The Standard Model I think is an adequate description of the phenomena, if not an elegant result such as those attempted by string theory or Garret Lisi’s Lie group. Maxwell’s equations, and Feynman’s contribution, are an amazingly powerful model of subatomic physics. So yes, QM theory is useful because it corresponds to the available data.

    I thought Maxwell’s equations were pretty challenging, but if you’re doing climate models using the Navier-Stokes equations on a rotating sphere, then I bow to your mastery. Still, the predictions from all of these models is global warming of 2 to 5 degrees over the next century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. ropata (117 comments) says:

    Also this is a rather bold statement: Observations are useless without theoretical numerical models.
    Who needs to build Deep Thought just to work out that the sea level is rising?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Ropata, first of all, I don’t do climate models. I just read research papers in climate modelling just to keep myself informed on the debate. I know the majority of modelling techniques that are being used in numerical climate modelling and this is the reason that I have no problem with reading their climate research peer review papers. Most numerical algorithm just boils down to linear algebra. High-end compute intensive climate models use LAPACK (Linear Algebra PACKage) which is a free FORTRAN package use in the development of scientific computing applications. I use the same package but the Java version of it (JLapack). I also use other open source numerical libraries for high-performance computing in my development such as Colt use by nuclear physicists at CERN. I’ve noted recently, that the open source Lucene search engine, the contributors have incorporated Colt API into it because search engine VSM (vector space model) as in latent semantic analysis must use linear algebra for indexing (the SVD algorithm in Colt).

    Ropata said…
    I think most physicists consider electromagnetic radiation to be a massless “probability wave” of pure energy that either reflects or collapses to a packet of heat energy when it hits matter.

    This is the heart of the problem. Most physicists as you said it (or in other words, consensus – does it sound familiar to you regarding AGW) don’t dictate to nature itself and determine of what physical reality should be, it should in fact be the other way round. Again, that collapses that you mentioned above is what in disputes amongst physicists and philosophers. Philosophically there is a huge contradiction there. What most physicists would agree on, is to adopt a Feynman mentality which is , Just Shut-up And Calculate, meaning to forget if QM represents true physical reality or not, just concentrate on its usefulness. This is where I stand (including many other physicists). I concentrate on the usefulness of the QM theory but pay little attention to whether it corresponds to the true underlying physical reality of nature or not because it is something unimportant.

    Can we apply a Feynman mentality to AGW? No. The reason here is quite obvious. Just Shut-up And Calculate in AGW will affect economic welfare of different countries and their citizens, while its application in physics, it doesn’t affect people’s pockets at all. AGW numerical modelling and its math are at the heart of the debate for both warmists and skeptics.

    Ropata said…
    So yes, QM theory is useful because it corresponds to the available data.

    I asked you to give an opinion whether in fact material objects can be at 2 different points in space at once according the QM (as in the double-slit-experiment) but you just repeated what I said already, i.e., the usefulness of QM. My own view (including other physicists) is no. Objects can’t be a wave & a particle at the same time as QM theory says, because it is philosophically insane. It contradicts existence itself if objects can have an identity ‘A’ and identity ‘B’ at the same time.

    Ropata said…
    Navier-Stokes equations on a rotating sphere…

    I don’t think that I’ll be doing climate modelling using Navier-Stokes anytime soon as I explained above, that I don’t do R&D in climate modelling. If they (climate scientists) do outsource contract work in this area then I may be interested. In fact I had some informal communication with scientists at NIWA a few years ago regarding developing numerical models to be used by their analysts, but they said that they already got that area covered.

    I am not a guru in solving Navier-Stokes, since its “blow-up” concept is a long standing problem for mathematicians. It has also received considerable publicity recently in the context of one of the $ 1 million challenge offered by the Clay Mathematics Institute.

    However I have implemented an image processing algorithm based on Navier-Stokes for a contract that I did for a local company that develops multimedia automated archiving system. Their system uses SVM for classification (similar to what is described in this paper), but not exactly the same. They found out last year, that certain deteriorated videos and images hugely affect the accuracy of their system’s automated classification due to other problems including the familiar inpainting problem. The rate of images & videos that were misclassified (false positive) were unacceptable to them, since there is lots of manual checking is done to correct the misclassified files. There are already algorithms that solve inpainting problem, but these algorithms require certain parameters to be set by the user before run time processing, which is inapplicable in automated recognition system. The problem of automated classification was hugely improved by using the algorithm described in the following paper.

    Image Inpainting with the Navier-Stokes Equations

    I have been in touch with this company recently, since they want to develop a full image processing suites and I told them to look at JAI (Java Advanced Imaging) which is the best out there today not only that, they will avoid re-inventing the wheels.

    Ropata said…
    Also this is a rather bold statement:

    Google the interview of prominent theoretical physicist Lisa Randall by Wilson in which she quoted that physical reality is well hidden, that you must need a model to guide you, otherwise you walk aimlessly like a blind drunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. ropata (117 comments) says:

    That is an interesting and eloquent commentary on ignoring the data and proceeding directly to theoretical la-la-land. It’s not good science unfortunately. Also, I think you’re kidding around with that ArXiv link.. it’s like an April 1 paper

    data data data data data data data data data data data data data data data data

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Ropata said…
    That is an interesting and eloquent commentary on ignoring the data and proceeding directly to theoretical la-la-land. It’s not good science unfortunately.

    The theoretical model gives you a good starting point. Data is collected (from experiments) at some stage later (when technology allows) to confirm if if fact your starting point (ie, model) is (near) correct or it needed to shift (ie, modify or reject). Where the hell do you think String theorists can get data to verify their theories? None, whatsoever that is currently available today. CERN may look into testing some of the claims of the String theory at some stage in the future and that’s where data source can come from. At this stage, the data is none-existent and that’s fact but at least the model gives theoreticians a starting point of where/what to explore.

    The paper from ArXiv was a survey and not a theoretical physics model? Had you participated in the survey (lets just say), what would you have chosen? I asked you above in my previous message to comment and you have failed so far? I suspect that you don’t want to take side as it would be counter to what AGW has been built on.

    What is your opinion , does the particle go thru the 2 slit-holes simultaneously or not in the double slit experiment referred to above? The question that I asked is not theoretical physics one but, it is just a simple observation. I bet you that if Luc Hansen had seen the youtube video of the double-slit experiment above, then he would understand the simple question that I have put forward to you, about the trajectory of the single particle (electron) if indeed in went thru the 2 holes at once or not. You can see such experimental setup in any physics lab if there is one near you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. lloydois (268 comments) says:

    How sad. A media sensation speaking to a bunch of brain dead retards. Nothing he said convinced me otherwise, just very surprised someone as supposedly savvy as David thought it sensational.

    What a sad bunch of irrelevant fuckers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. ropata (117 comments) says:

    lloydois.
    You’ve made 241 comments here, welcome to the sad bunch. It seems you need someone to explain the OP in simple words, because you evidently have no clue.

    Falafulu
    As I mentioned above I am happy to go along with the standard physics model for light (a duality or probability wave).. why are you trying to force a binary choice between a wave or a particle? You think a duality is insane, and you prefer a model one way or the other? But as you know, light is only one example of quantum weirdness. I first saw that experiment in stage 1 physics at Auckland uni, 1988.

    But presumably modelling quantum behaviour is totally irrelevant to climate modelling.. there’s a huge difference in the available data and applicable theories (i.e. 25+ orders of magnitude difference)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. ropata (117 comments) says:

    PS I was introduced to numerical modelling when the Fortran77 NAG library was the gold standard :) I haven’t pursued it but it’s quite fascinating, especially some of the medical applications.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.