Today’s Blunt

July 22nd, 2011 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Tags: ,

28 Responses to “Today’s Blunt”

  1. DJP6-25 (1,294 comments) says:

    This one is OK.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Ryan Sproull (7,055 comments) says:

    “Productive”.

    That word.

    I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RightNow (6,773 comments) says:

    I think you think I think it means something other than what I think you think I think it means.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Ryan Sproull (7,055 comments) says:

    Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RightNow (6,773 comments) says:

    The more I look at the word think the more I think it’s hinky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Ryan Sproull (7,055 comments) says:

    There’s actually a word for that phenomenon.

    Anyway, I intend to win at capitalism, which means becoming entirely unproductive while others are productive for me.

    I want to accrue capital, invest it, retire and live off the returns. Any productivity will be entirely accidental.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ryan Sproull (7,055 comments) says:

    Sorry, I mean any productivity after I retire will be entirely accidental. While working, I will be productive. Once I’ve become a success, I can stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    The first line says it all. I am not looking forward to next year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RightNow (6,773 comments) says:

    Clowns taste funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. labrator (1,797 comments) says:

    Any productivity will be entirely accidental.

    Did you mean incidental? Your capital would have to be productive to provide you with any sort of return.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ed Snack (1,769 comments) says:

    Yes Ryan, unless you intend living off the capital alone (no interest etc), then your capital IS productive. Or at least other people will regard it as so and pay interest in order to use it.

    Amassing the means to be productive is what makes a society wealthy; investment in things to make other things rather than only for immediate consumption is how to become wealthy. But, productive investment in such things of course. And so far only capitalism as a broad approach has achieved this efficiently because of an effective mechanism for weeding out the bad ideas; freedom to chose plus competition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Daigotsu (451 comments) says:

    I thought DPF was a supporter of emissions trading and a believer in climate change.

    [DPF: I am. But I don't exercise editorial control over the cartoons]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    The person depicted has an uncanny resemblance to the deranged Nick Smith, the Green fifth-columnist and Labour lite minister

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    [DPF: I am (a believer in climate change).

    Labour lite in a sentence!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. TCrwdb (246 comments) says:

    Funny how an atheist manages to find something to believe in…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    You’re funny, Sprout. No wonder you made editor of Crappum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ISeeRed (244 comments) says:

    TCrwdb, you’re an atheist too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Were all f*** climate change and the Greens have the high ground

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

    I thought DPF was a supporter of emissions trading and a believer in climate change.

    [DPF: I am...]

    Funny how an atheist manages to find something to believe in…

    Were all f*** climate change and the Greens have the high ground

    The first two statements illustrate the single most common misunderstanding the theory of anthropogenic climate change: that there is something to “believe in.”

    One is not required to “believe in” climate change any more than one is required to “believe in”, for example, evolution. Both are founded upon observed fact.

    In fact, to make the comparison even more apt, if one understands that Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection where evolution is the observed fact and natural selection is the explanation, in the case of climate change, global warming is the observed fact and anthropogenic carbon based emissions is the explanation.

    So global warming/climate change is the observed fact. Even our slightly eccentric friend, Don Nicholson, recognises that as a fact.

    Now here’s the crunch: by a ration of about 97:1, climate scientists the world over have determined that human induced emissions are the cause of global warming/climate change.

    So what you need to decide is this, do you accept the work of the overwhelming majority of our best scientists, or do you choose to go with the bullied, the bribed and the cranks (Chris de Freitas is either one or both of the last two here, I suggest)?

    You pays your money and you takes your chances, but there is no need for belief in anything.

    Climate change and the work of the scientists are evidence based.

    And it is so powerful that denier de Freitas won’t even teach it to his students: it’s so compelling they would laugh him out of the classroom if he persisted with his contrary views!

    The third statement simply highlights my point: atheists are defined by their lack of belief, preferring hard evidence.

    And the final statement is just probably very, very true, and that’s the party my vote is most probably headed towards for the first time in my life because, on this, they are so very, very on the button.

    Lastly, just how f****d in the head is Blunt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    I think u will find that they are more red than green and that they cling to irrational ideas long past their use by date i.e communism herbalism alt medicine etc etc etc. ie ism and not theory in the scientific sense but as in wild and unproven hypotheses

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

    Griff, until Russ Norman took control, I would have agreed with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    Shunting SlappySue allowed a change as well They will be more of a threat to the right and may begin to pick up those educated middle class that are doing alright financially yet harbor green ideals
    I am beginning to think that Act has totally lost its brand and can c a new party arising after election day that has more emphasis on the pragmatism inherent in Acts founders

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

    I’ve never heard of Roger Douglas being described as a pragmatist!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. sbk (310 comments) says:

    a believer in climate change…does not the sun turn to night…are there not 4 seasons in one year(unless you live in Auckland !)…yep,i am a believer.

    …and theres Luc a believer in AGW,

    just how f****d in the head is this Cnut.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. sbk (310 comments) says:

    oops…does not the day turn to night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Ed Snack (1,769 comments) says:

    Luc, if it’s all so evidence based, why all the propaganda, disinformation and lies that appears on a daily basis about it then ? Fact, the current warming is statistically indistinguishable from past “naturally occurring” warming as long as one treats the data in a statistically valid way. Pity all your “scientists” are adamantly opposed to such treatment, preferring instead simplistic approaches that provide the answers that they want to get. Science is based on evidence and facts, not pre-determined beliefs that distort those facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. TCrwdb (246 comments) says:

    “Climate change and the work of the scientists are evidence based.”

    On ya Luc, keep repeating the same old lie, who was it again that advocated this tactic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    When insults fly the truth does die
    “not theory in the scientific sense but as in wild and unproven hypotheses”
    I am sure that the Ernest young scientists out there are trying to disprove AGW
    till they do I see no reason to go against the current scientific consensus

    Luc Hansen He was left his family was left he changed the way he thought by actually looking at the data available not basing his conclusions solely on a political belief system I call that pragmatic

    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.