It’s a reminder that, where natural forces of markets are impeded by governments in order to favour special interest groups disproportionately, there will inevitably be “collateral damage” to wider economies over the medium term.
So; which Labour MP pushed through the Major Events Management Act 2007 to PROTECT event organisers from scalpers and ambush marketers, but likes to make a dollar on the side (actually, it’s $276, but who’s counting?)?
graham – this morning on yesterday’s General Debate Penny says: “Essentially, the allegation is that the Pike River mining disaster was deliberate, that the 29 miners were murdered, in order to help build support for open-cast mining, which can then be argued to be ‘safer’ than underground mining, thus help open up New Zealand for international mining companies.”
That is one HELL of a claim, Penny. You are on VERY thin ice there, potentially causing untold grief to the families, accusing people of murder, and claiming New Zealand’s own version of the Twin Towers 911 conspiracy.
And, just as 9/11 to be an inside job would have required Osama bin Laden sworn to omertà [as well as hundreds of others in a unity unimaginable in any American institution], is the current Pike River evidence of personality clashes and disposition are all just play acting to fit the Joseph Cohen/Penny Bright scenario? The bitter clashes between managers and Pike River coalmine’s former chief executive Peter Whittall are scripted, down to the ‘dodgy git, liar’ emails, the flawed power supply, water pump failures are all props, and the paucity of safety inspectors all storylined.
As was asked before, also yesterday’s General Debate –
Penny, given you have said –
‘Whistle-blowing’ author of “Murder at Pike River Mine”, Jacob Cohen, sent me hard copies of his work, with additional hard copy evidence to support his extremely disturbing claims. … I believe that the families and the public have the right to a full and thorough independent investigation, so that the FACTS can fully emerge without whitewashing or coverup.”
– have you forwarded copies of the additional hard copy evidence, supporting Cohen’s claims, to the appropriate authorities or Pike River families? As a self-proclaimed whistle blower, Penny, are you blowing any whistles?
Duncan Garner was commenting on the Crafar farms deal this morning. He said firstly that the government now has public opinion to support a decision to decline the application and that this was an “out”. He then said that the government should impose a moratorium on all sales so that it could review the legislation. There will of course be countless people encouraged by that comment. It is an emotive issue and statements like those are grasped keenly by the anti-deal brigade. It is a pity that Duncan Garner did not have the integrity to point out that “public opinion” is not one of the criteria specified in the Act. The Court has just released a decision specifically recording the extent to which the government must undertake an objective analysis. Where Duncan Garner fits the primarily subjective perception of public opinion into this matrix is a little unclear. Perhaps you could have enlightened us?
As far as imposing a de facto moratorium on sales is concerned, it is entirely possible that Mr Garner was still in nappies when Robert Muldoon decreed that it was no longer necessary to contribute to the superannuation fund established by the previous labour government. The Court informed Mr Muldoon that he did not actually have the jurisdiction to do that and that his political whim did not override an act of Parliament. Even giving allowance for youth, I really would have thought Mr Garner would have familiarised himself with such a significant decision, given that he is a political commentator. Or, was such a decision inconvenient for him?
Funny thing is, as much as Trev is a hypocrite (and as a politician, that’s is inevitable), I’m perfectly happy with him being able to sell tickets as he has. Those who complained thought that the tickets were worth it, or they wouldn’t have bought them. Would they rather they simply were unable to go at any price ?
The commie blog make a mockery of mass and social media. For example the company I work for doesn’t take off any bad comments on our facebook profile, because it is dishonest, yet the Substandard and that other Labour blog edits anything that goes against their official line. I’m banned from both now.
Incidently got personaly banned by Mallard for repeatedly asking him, “As a single white male, why should I be supporting other’s choice to breed and have more and more kids?”
Leaked documents show US thinktank the Heartland Institute has been making payments to experts and scientists to cast doubt on climate science.
“Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. ……the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”
FFS Dissuading teachers from teaching science. That is the extent that this propaganda machine will go to
Griff, so far it looks like Heartland may have spent as much as $6.5M over time. Why would that even register against the hundreds of millions per year given to propaganda organisations like Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Group, etc for promoting climate alarmism. And that’s not just private money, but a lot of tax payer funding from the EU in particular.
You seem to be arguing that it is in some way reprehensible to argue against climate alarmism in any way, shape or form. And that despite the well known and demonstrable falsity of many of the claims and the outright fraud practiced by some who support it. The whole schtick is falling apart rather isn’t it, which is why you and the other conspiracy theorist nuts must strain so hard to find “dirty funding” behind anyone opposing you.
Griff – When did the definition of “science” change? Was it with the emergence of “consensus” as the final arbiter?
As for anything on this issue that emarges from economist/guardian sources….a grain (or two) of salt would help!
You are right about the propaganda machine. The problem is that it is taxpayer money that is funding it.
This is news I did not strain to get it the story broke yesterday I have posted it so those that actually interested in “The debate”can keep up with the latest developments
You state “And that despite the well known and demonstrable falsity of many of the claims ” Huh
Read the links.
Heartland is trying to “Dissuade teachers from teaching science” their words not mine.
Which is why you and the other conspiracy theorist nuts must strain so hard to find “dirty funding”
Not much of a strain now Someone from within leaked the dirt
Your claims are baseless repetition of propaganda dissimulated by a very small group directly founded by the energy industry. The links I have posted look into the process they are using to suck in sheep like you
Cheers for that Steve; but it was specifically referencing the post on which it was originally placed; they’re slagging off Key for flogging stuff off, and all I did was suggest that today might not be the best day to do that
If, as they are described, these are genuine Heartland internal documents, the leak is at least as good as the “climategate” e-mails.
The 2012 action plan by the institute includes curriculum development designed, as the documents put it, to “show that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”
Trying to promote “controversial and uncertain” is one of the anti-evolution tactics too.
The leaked document also, apparently, reveal Heartland Institute funding to “key individuals” for countering the “alarmist AGW message”, identifying Craig Isdo (the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change), the University of Virginia’s Fred Singer, and Australian Robert Carter as receiving Heartland funding.
Donations to and from Heartland may shine a bit of light on Climate Debate Warming.
As posted before, the pro-climate change lobby in the US alone is a 30bn dollar industry. A bit ironic that the global cooling deniers object to some other lobby funding skeptisism. I guess the AWG industry has a lot to protect, which they can only do by being ever more alarmist.
Doesn’t stop the IPCC house of cards crumbling, with their CO2 models demonstrably diverging more and more from reality with time. They just seem to get more creative with their excuses, which the AWG sheep continue to lap up without question.
The left right divide is very much an out dated concept under mmp.
Of far more interest is the tension between liberal conservative
There is a divide in the left in new Zealand between conservative labor and liberal green
This actually is a point of strength in the left that with the take over of Act by conservative factions leaves the right at a disadvantage.
hmm……….. let’s see how long John Banks lasts as the ACT MP for Epsom, after a Parliamentary inquiry arising from the following petition – which:
That the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the decisions regarding prosecutions relating to the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009.”
Coming to Parliament soon…………
Not sure which MP will present this petition – but I’m sure there will be one or two who may be interested?
ALL three former fellow Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, equally signed Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009, which contained untrue statements.
So – how come only ONE Director – Peter Huljich – was ever charged?
Where else is a concerned citizen to go with this matter when neither the old (useless) Securities Commission, the new (useless?) Finance Markets Authority, the Serious Fraud Office nor the NZ Police have equally applied ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ to those who have most loudly espoused this ‘principle’ ?
The former Leader of the ACT Party – Don (gone by lunchtime) Brash, and presumably the new leader of the ACT Party – the current (but for how long) ACT MP for Epsom – John Banks?
How about ZERO TOLERANCE FOR ‘WHITE COLLAR’ CRIME?
(For more background information – feel free to check out http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz )
PS: Interesting how TODAY the ACT Party are announcing their new ‘Leader’?
Whom exactly the National Party “B” Team ‘Leader’ is going to ‘lead’ is a fair question – is it not?
Is Catherine Isaac going to be the new ACT Party Leader?
If so – does Catherine Isaac support ACT stated policy of ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?
(We know that current ACT MP for Epsom John Banks obviously doesn’t).
Former ACT Leader Rodney Hide does.
PROOF that the former (deposed) Leader of the ACT Party, Rodney Hide, supports ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL” and agrees that one law for all should equally apply to ACT MP for Epsom, John Banks, and former ACT Party Leader Don Brash, who as fellow former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management equally signed registered prospectuses that contained untrue statements:
Rodney Hide was a guest with Willie Jackson on Radio Live, Friday 20 January 2012, from 1 – 3pm.
I rang and asked the following questions:
“Rodney, you were the former Leader of the ACT Party.
Do you believe in ‘one law for all’?”
Rodney Hide’s reply – “Yes”.
“Do you believe that one law for all should equally apply to ACT MP for Epsom, John Banks, and former ACT Party Leader Don Brash, who as fellow former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management equally signed registered prospectuses that contained untrue statements?”
Rodney Hide’s reply – “Yes”.
(This was on approximately the 85th minute of the show – about 15mm from the end using the ‘position slider’).
Pete – absolutely nothing. My point would be the whole ‘lobby’ system in the US seems to breed corruption. No surprise that a lobby like ‘heartland’ would also be acting unscrupulously.
Are these the same US based ‘conservatives’ that constructed the whole ‘intelligent design’ ridiculouslessness to counter science that didn’t fit with their chosen fundamentlist dogma? Wouldn’t suprise me..
Instead of engaging in baseless and irresponsible rhetoric, why don’t you answer the specific questions that I asked you on GD yesterday. I have referred the same issue to you previously (on a number of occasions)and you have not given a straight answer. That is because you can’t. The same law is applied to all parties in this case. Hulijich could not establish the defence. He acknowledged that he knowlingly made a false statement. Banks and Brash did not know that there was a false statement (which was a failure to disclose information ( deliberately withheld from them by Hulijich).
So, if you recall, yesterday I agreed with you. I said yes, let’s have one law for all.
Let’s start with you being prosecuted for advocating the STEALING of power from the Auckland Citly Council.
Let’s continue with you advocating STEALING water which you have not paid for (and indeed, demonstrating to others how to do it).
Let’s go on to investigate the defamatory signs you attached to election billboards, accusing John Banks of being a criminal.
You responded by asking “How come John Banks never made a complaint to the Electoral Commission ‘Graham’?”
Well obviously, it was because he’s far more mature than you, and realised that most thinking people could see past your amateur attempts to smear him.
You stated, “I NEVER advocated Occupy Auckland ‘stealing power’ – in fact I was one of those who filled out the ‘application’ form, in order for Occupy Auckland to be properly invoiced.”
Well, same as yesterday, I still can’t get onto the “Occupy” website – it returns a 404 error for some reason – but I have previously posted here the links to a GA meeting held in November, I think from memory, where a “Penny” proclaimed something along the lines of “let’s apply for power, if they don’t give it to us WE’LL TAKE IT”. So are you claiming this wasn’t you, but some other Penny?
And finally, you said “what I have done is showed members of the public how to restore their water supply if it has been tampered with, in defence of the basic human right to water.”
You have shown members of the public how to STEAL water if they choose not to pay for its supply from one particular source. If you were truly concerned about the “basic human right to water”, you would show people how to install a water tank and connect it to their house plumbing. You don’t have to get your water from the town water supply – I don’t – but if you sign a contract to get water from there, and you then neglect your side of the contract, then the contract is null and void. Hence, taking water under these circumstances is STEALING it.
Mr Mallard told Radio Live this morning that he hadn’t been aware he could put a “buy now” price on the auction.
Labour leader David Shearer, on National’s technology plans for the public service – “As technology comes on board, so long as it works, it’s the way to go. But we’ve gotta remember that out there there’s maybe people who don’t have access to technology. …”
If you actually research the intelligent design controversy from both sides and follow links as to the directors, funding, collaborators you eventually find its a small group of institutes lobby groups etc that fund the so called debate and the methods used to counter science
Just watch out for Cognitive dissonance
…> Re funding: we took $1M from a bunch of oil companies (inc EXXON) via
> IPIECA about 10 years ago. We used it to come up with the first estimate
> of the second indirect cooling effect of aerosol on predictions. ………
Yes RightNow they are extremely effective in wot they do
They get a disproportionate amount of mileage out of very little money
The also have a disproportionate amount of information with very little science
Why are you doing this? Isn’t this the responsibility of our government agency NOAA?
Yes NOAA is responsible for the operation, documentation and upkeep of the USHCN set of weather stations. In fact in 1997 there were concerns expressed by a National Research Council panel about the state of the climate measuring network.
In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: “Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press”, online here The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded:
“The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating.”
Yet, ten years later, even the most basic beginning of a recovery program has not been started. No online photographic database existed of the USHCN stations, and despite repeated requests from Dr. Robert A. Peilke Senior at CIRES the project has not been undertaken. Given the lack of movement on the part of NOAA and NCDC, Dr. Peilke also made requests of state climatologists to perform photographic site surveys. A couple responded, such as Roger Taylor in Oregon, and Dev Nyogi in Indiana, but many cited “costs” of such work to thier meager budgets as a reason not to perform surveys.
Given such a massive failure of bureaucracy to perform something so simple as taking some photographs and making some measurements and notes of a few to a few dozen weather stations in each state, it seemed that a grass roots network of volunteers could easily accomplish this task.
“One such group which provided a forum for Monckton, but unreported at the time, was the fringe political party Rise Up Australia, which is a de facto branch of the extreme Christian fundamentalist group Catch the Fire Ministries.”
They have all the data they just like the doubt that arises They post this court case everywhere as well to “prove” the figures are wrong. You know lawyers and court cases and all that. You will find it on the sites linked to heartland
Oh did I mention they set up a trust to do this so they were not liable for costs.
Griff “I do not need to tell you.” – clearly you do, I wasn’t aware of anyone suing NIWA. What’s the point? They don’t produce an official temperature record.
“You must Research the provenance of information as well as the content.” – your modus operandi seems to avoid researching the content unless you approve of the provenance. Perhaps you should think about that.
Our Coalition has filed a claim in the High Court of New Zealand seeking a declaration that the NZ Temperature Record published by the National Institute for Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not a full and accurate record of changes in the average surface temperatures recorded in NZ since 1900. On 5 August we wroie to NIWA chairman Chris Mace (pdf text here ) suggesting that his Board institute an internal review – this was declined (pdf here ).
We have filed an Amended Statement of Claim, adding a cause of action against the “New 7SS” (NZT7) resulting from NIWA’s 2010 Review. A copy is attached (here ). Clause 38 and all the following material are new allegations.
Second attempt at a court case as well.
I was disusing the manipulation of the media by small lobby groups Interesting that you post links with provenance that links to the party implicate in this operation.
the NZ Temperature Record published by the National Institute for Water & Atmospheric Research
Comprehension is never your strong point is it
If you would like to debate the sources of funding for heartland and the extortionate impact of these lobby groups go ahead.
If you would like to debate global warming I suggest that most are extremely tied of link wars on the matter.
Does it trouble you that climate scientists get funded by big oil?
Not at all science is the way forward this is not “dissuading teachers from teaching science.”
7. It denies paragraph 7, and says: (a) There is no „official‟ or formal New Zealand
(b) The Defendant‟s website contains a page titled
New Zealand temperature record (“NZTR”), being
an informal description for a collection of different
streams of climate information, including:
(i) The Seven-station Temperature Series
(ii) The Eleven-station Temperature Series
(iii) other references to information from ship
measurements of sea-surface temperatures
and marine night-time air temperatures over
the oceans around New Zealand (“Marine
The great cull starts soon. You all knew deep down that the way you were living was wrong. That you were feeding your own egocentric desires with the blood sweet and tears of your own brothers and sisters. Well guess what. The sympathy has run out. Blood will run the streets. There will be no mercy. Make your peace with god now before it’s too late.
It bothers me That you can not work this stuff out for your self.
Please go and read my posts and links from the start of the day.
Then enter the debate over small lobby groups influencing public opinion by misinformation
note post changed from
F$#K of bhudson
This crap pisses me of no end
The killing of science for political ends by the filthy rich is totally scarey stuff that I thought only happened in sci fi novels and the minds of the tin foil hat brigade.
It is real it is easy to see and its supported by sheep.
Surely more funding for climate science is a good thing if you happen to believe there’s an issue?
It’s not who pays for it, it’s the quality of the science that matters.
If there is a problem with the actual results then present it. The rather feeble attempts here to smear contradictory results instead implies that they can’t actually find anything wrong with them.
By contrast, it is well documented that the alarmist “scientists” have cherry-picked their data, concealed contradictory evidence, conspired to pervert the peer-review process and to delete emails to thwart Freedom of Information requests. And on top of that some of their results have simply been proven wrong. And let’s not forget how Climategate revealed what an absolute shambles their data management is.
So if anyone has data and evidence by all means present it. But if all you have is childish school-yard name calling then I’m thinking your position is bankrupt.
(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and
(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
‘The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me.
‘The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.’
Climate gate seven independent reviews across two countries including government and university inquiries
1 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process
2 Science Assessment Panel
this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice.” He criticised the way that the emails had been misrepresented, saying that “UEA has already put on record its deep regret and anger that the theft of emails from the University, and the blatant misrepresentation of their contents as revealed both in this report
3 Pennsylvania State University
” Mann’s extensive recognitions within the research community demonstrated that “his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists.” It agreed unanimously that “there is no substance” to the allegations against Mann
4 Independent Climate Change Email Review
The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which “routinely misunderstood the scientific issues”, reached “faulty scientific conclusions”, “resorted to hyperbole”, and “often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues.” In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the petitions were based “on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy” and provided “no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare.”
6 Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
the researchers and “did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures”. It noted that NOAA reviewed its climate change data as standard procedure, not in response to the controversy.
7 National Science Foundation
The OIP findings confirmed the university panel’s conclusions which cleared Mann of any wrongdoing, and it stated “Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action.”
It bothers me That you can not work this stuff out for your self.
Please go and read my posts and links from the start of the day.
Then enter the debate over small lobby groups influencing public opinion by misinformation
So what you are really saying is that it is ok for big oil to fund groups you agree with
Climategate quotes, the final one that admits knowledge there has been ‘no warming’ is the most damning:
“They would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.” – Adam Markham, WWF
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” – Phil Jones
“I simply would not like to see you write a paper that puts out a confused message with regard to the global warming debate…I am totally confident that after a day’s rephrasing this paper can go back and be publishable to my satisfaction by Science.” – Keith Briffa
“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” – Michael Mann
“It would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”.” – Michael Mann
“So, acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a very dangerous precedent.” – Phil Jones
“In an odd way (the death of John Daly) is cheering news!” – Phil Jones
“Personally, I wouldn’t send (Stephen McIntyre) anything. I have no idea what he’s up to, but you can be sure it falls into the “no good” category.” – Michael Mann
“Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.” – Phil Jones
“We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind.” – Phil Jones
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” – Phil Jones
“The others who could be added (to this email list) at this early stage are Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, your “co-conspirators”—and perhaps Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn.” – Tom Wigley
“In our discussion of possible participants in Bern…the last two on the list (with question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus and progress.” – Michael Mann
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith regarding the latest (IPCC) report? Keith will do likewise…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?…We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” – Phil Jones
“Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.” – Ben Santer
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” – Kevin Trenberth
You did read them did you not bhudson
A small lobby group in the USA is at the center of most of the climate denial.
This campaign is a deliberate effort to undermine the science
Fat nuts I gave you seven independent reviews of the climate emails all found no fault in the science. You are spouting bullshit by seven to zero
You are spreading heartland generated propaganda To caste doubt when independent reviews have repeatedly found no doubt in the science or the scientists
Buy the way if you actually read heartlands accounts Its not big oil its mostly one anonymous man
I think it is you who had the comprehension fade. I made no reference to Heartland.
My question was solely around ascertaining from you if, given you accept the funding from big oil for a group whose view you support, you also accept that big oil could also fund groups with opinions counter to those that you accept.
A very simple question. So I will restate to ease the exercise of comprehension on your part.
You noted above that you have no issue with big oil funding a group you agree with. Do you accept, therefore, that big oil could also legitimately fund groups with counter-opinions; that the big oil funding, in itself, has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity and validity of the work undertaken and positions expressed?
I repeat, I did not comment on Heartland and my question to you had nothing to do with them, but with a comment you had made with respect to big oil funding a group whose views you support.
Do you accept, therefore, that big oil could also legitimately fund groups with counter-opinions; that the big oil funding, in itself, has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity and validity of the work undertaken and positions expressed?
Griff, I’ll interpret the most pertinent quote so you may easily understand:
“The *FACT* (his words, not mine) is that we CAN’T ACCOUNT for the LACK OF WARMING at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” – Kevin Trenberth
That is, they KNOW there is no warming happening, and their CO2 models don’t predict this. That is, they KNOW for a fact that their CO2 models are flawed. Which is entirely consistent with the CLOUD findings, and the UK Met office termurature record showing global cooling since 1998.
A chemical plant exploded into flames. An alarm
went out to fire departments for miles around.
After several hours of fighting the fire, the
president of the chemical company approached the
fire chief and said, “I will give $100,000 to
the engine company that can rescue our secret
formulas from the vault in the center of the plant.”
After a couple of hours of fire fighting, the
chief was ready to admit defeat. The formulas
could not be rescued.
Suddenly, another fire truck came into view,
sirens screaming. It was a little volunteer
company comprised of firefighters over the
age of 65. The little fire truck raced through
the chemical plant and drove straight into the
middle of the inferno. The old timers began
fighting the fire with an effort never before
In time, they extinguished the fire and saved the
After giving the little group their reward money,
the company president asked the group what they
would do with the cash.
The fire truck driver looked him in the eye and
said, “First thing we’re going to do is fix the
brakes on that truck!”
Watch for a ‘same old, same old’ identity, to frequent the headlines tomorrow from this mornings arrests in the city.
Probably less interesting than the 2 allegations made against Hart which are still suppressed.
A passenger plane flying from Australia to the USA is suddenly hit with severe engine problems and plummets into the Pacific Ocean.
The impact is such that the plane is ripped apart leaving only one man alive. After hours of swimming he spies an island and drags himself up onto the sandy shores.
Though he is half drowned and aware that he is thousands of miles from home, he cannot but admire the beauty of the island he has found himself on.
Looking down the beach he sees a figure lying on the beach, another survivor from the crash. He runs over and sees that she is not breathing, so quickly he gives her the kiss of life. After several attempts she coughs into life. As she wipes the hair from her face he now can see who it is…its Kylie Minogue!
Forever grateful to him for saving her life, they strike up an immediate bond, and over the following weeks, while stranded on the island, they fall madly in love. One day Kylie is walking down the beach and notices her new
found love sitting on the rocks by the beach, staring out to sea, with a look of sorrow on his face. She wanders over to him, and asks what is wrong. “Kylie,” he says, “The last few weeks have been the greatest of my life. We’ve found this island paradise. We have all the food and water we could require, and I have you, but still I can’t help feeling there’s something missing.”
Kylie replies: “What my darling? What is it that you need? I’ll do anything”.
“Well there is one thing. Would you mind putting on my shirt?”
“And my trousers?”
At this point he gets up and grabs some charcoal from the ground, and draws a neat moustache on her lips. “OK… Can you start to walk around the island, and I’ll set off the other way and meet you half way.”
“OK dear, whatever will make you happy?”
So off they set. After an hour walking he eventually sees her heading towards him along the beach, at which point he breaks into a sprint, runs up to her, grabs her by the shoulders and shouts:
“I gave you seven independent reviews of the climate emails all found no fault in the science.”
I think you’ll find that the “reviews” did not even look at the science and did not investigate the issues. The hand-picked reviewers basically asked the authors of the emails if they had done anything wrong and they said no they hadn’t. The farcical nature of these “investigations” only confirmed people’s worst suspicions.
Or perhaps you believe otherwise? Can you pick a review which you think performed a thorough investigation and we can have a look at it together.
The ‘reviewers’ were probably employed by the same governments that have invested tens of billions of dollars in AWG. There is serious political capital invested in AWG, country leadership has risen and fallen based on AWG.
An old man turned 115 and was being interviewed by a reporter for the local paper. During the interview the reporter noticed that the yard was full of children of all ages playing together. A very pretty girl of about 19 served the old man and the reporter, keeping them in fresh tea and running errands for them.
“Are these your grandkids?” the reporter asked.
“Naw, sir, they all be my younguns,” the old man replied with a sly grin.
“Your kids?” said the reporter. “What about this beautiful young lady who keeps bringing us tea? Is she one of your children too?”
“Naw, sir,” said the old man. “She be my wife.”
“Your wife?” said the surprised reporter. “But she can’t be more than 19 years old.”
“Thass right,” said the old man with pride.
“Well, surely you can’t have a sex life with you being 115 and she being only 19,” the reporter remarked.
“Naw, sir, ” said the old man. “We have sex every night. Every night two of my boys helps me on her, and every morning six of my boys helps me off.”
“Wait just one minute,” said the newspaperman. “Why does it only take two of your boys to put you on, but it takes six of them to take you off?”
“Cause,” the spry old man said with a balled fist, “I fights ‘em.”
Dad was in the field ploughing when he noticed Mary run into the hay shed, A
few seconds’ later Bruce runs into the shed after her. After about twenty
minutes they still haven’t come out of the shed, so Dad decides to see
what they are doing.
As he walks into the hay shed he sees Bruce on top of Mary and
he was going to town. Dad thinks to himself that dirty bastard
and picks up a shovel and whacks Bruce on the arse with it.
Bruce jumps up and runs outside. Mary was still lying on the
floor trying to cover up her modesty; Dad looked down at her
and said, “I didn’t think you had it in you Mary.”
“Neither did I, Dad,” said Mary, “until you hit him on
the arse with the shovel.”
A reporter goes way up into the hills of West Virginia to write an article about the area. He meets an old man in a small town and asks him about any memorable events in his life.
The old man says, “Well, one time my favorite sheep got lost, so me and my neighbors got some moonshine and went looking for it. We looked and looked and finally found the sheep. Then we drank the moonshine and one by one, started shagging the sheep. It was a lot of fun!”
The reporter figured he can’t write an article about that, so he asked the old man to tell him another story.
The old man said, “Well, one time my neighbor’s wife got lost, so me and all the village men got some moonshine and went out looking for her. We looked and looked and finally we found her. Then we drank the moonshine and one by one, started shagging the neighbor’s wife. Now, THAT was a lot of fun!”
The reporter, feeling frustrated, finally told the old man that he couldn’t write articles about those stories and asked him if he had any dramatic or sad memories that he could talk about.
The old man paused a little and with a sad expression on his face said -
“Well, one time I was lost…”
A big fat woman goes to the gynaecologist for the first time. The gynaecologist explains how she has to get up on the stool and place her legs in the stirrups. With great effort, the obese woman climbs onto the stool and spreads her legs.
The gynaecologist turns round and takes a good look.
“Could you fart, please?” he says.
“Is that part of the treatment?”
“No, it’s just to eliminate an option in my search.”
As a climate change activist, climatologist Jim Hansen takes his activism a step beyond where most would be willing to go. He gets himself arrested.
Most recently, Hansen, who has directed the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies for nearly three decades, was cuffed in front of the White House at a protest against mountaintop removal coal mining.
Some write off Hansen as a flame-throwing radical. That’s a mistake. And not only because mountaintop removal is an abomination that flies in the face of just about everything conservatives are supposed to stand for – thrift, stewardship, and property rights for starters.
Hansen describes himself as a moderate conservative and is registered to vote as an independent. More importantly, he has been shopping around a framework for climate legislation that conservative elected officials might find interesting if they find themselves in a problem-solving mood.
Hansen’s proposal is simple, far simpler than the 1,400-plus pages of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that passed the House in 2009 but will die when the 111th Congress closes up for good later this year.
Hansen’s proposal makes use of market principles, by prodding the market to tell the truth about the costs of carbon-based energy through prices. It would not impose mandates on consumers or businesses, create new government agencies, or add a penny to Uncle Sam’s coffers.
Hansen calls his approach “fee and dividend.”
A gradually rising fee would be imposed on carbon-based energy sources at the points where they enter the economy – at mine mouths or ports of entry, for example.
Carbon-based energy imposes costs – on the environment, public health, and national security – and those costs would be made more obvious in the marketplace through the fees.
Energy prices likely would go up.
How much and for which uses of energy would depend largely on market dynamics. Revenues collected from carbon fees would be returned 100 percent to the public through dividends. Hansen estimates that a $115-per-ton carbon fee would add a dollar to the per-gallon price of gasoline but would raise enough revenues to pay every adult American as much as $3,000 per year.
How would Hansen’s plan affect individuals? That would depend on how they exercise their right to make free choices.
Those who wish to use carbon-based energy with abandon would be free to do so – knowing up front that they would pay the environmental and other costs of using lots of carbon-based energy rather than shift those costs onto their fellow citizens.
Those who acknowledge the market signal and change their purchasing decisions could avoid some or most of the higher prices. Depending on the choices they make and the size of their dividends, they might even come out ahead financially.
Businesses would seek out more opportunities to improve their energy efficiency. Other businesses would sell products and services that enable them to do so.
Low-carbon energy sources would be more competitive with high-carbon sources.
The idea behind the bill could be described in a 1-minute elevator speech.
As legislation, Hansen’s approach could fit onto a few pages. The bill could be read and understood by anyone – voters and lawmakers alike willing to put in a few minutes of time.
Transparent. Market-based. Does not enlarge government. Leaves energy decisions to individual choices. Takes a better-safe-than-sorry approach to throttling back oil dependence and keeping heat-trapping gases out of the atmosphere.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting. The USA are so completely anal about the issue that we would probably end up invaded ourselves…..if we avoided that fate every trade agreement we have with the USA & her puppets would be torn up within hours.
Overnight we could rid ourselves of gangs & a lot of social misery but as long as we have populist, poll driven politics the idea will never see the light of day.
Little wonder that the Greeks are pissed off about the austerity measures that they’re having to accept.
Even as the crisis was nearing the flashpoint, banks were searching for ways to help Greece forestall the day of reckoning. In early November — three months before Athens became the epicenter of global financial anxiety — a team from Goldman Sachs arrived in the ancient city with a very modern proposition for a government struggling to pay its bills, according to two people who were briefed on the meeting.
The bankers, led by Goldman’s president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece’s health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.
It had worked before. In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe’s monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a currency trade rather than a loan, helped Athens to meet Europe’s deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means.
Athens did not pursue the latest Goldman proposal, but with Greece groaning under the weight of its debts and with its richer neighbors vowing to come to its aid, the deals over the last decade are raising questions about Wall Street’s role in the world’s latest financial drama.
Faked I guess heartland is going to open up its email server for us all to have a closer look like they made Anglia university do. Then there will be nine independent inquirers all finding that one out of nine documents are fake. TUI
This has not been deigned Heartland Institute on watts funding
“Anthony Watts proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new temperature data
from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily
found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. Watts has deep expertise
in Web site design generally and is well-known and highly regarded by weathermen and
meteorologists everywhere. The new site will be promoted heavily at WattsUpwithThat.com.
Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011. The AnonymousDonor has already pledged $44,000″
For fucks sake you use a guy who is half funded by heartlands “Anonymous Donor” That is not his story on watts up is it
Rightnow it surprises me that a seemingly rational man supports this shit. AGW is not even a particular interest to me
Reading all the dienialist posts on climate change showed me were the disinformation campaign was coming from. Big oil was a guess based on known contributors to heartland. Now the truth is out its mostly one man and his personal vendetta against science
There are more organizations involved Cato or someone else will pick up the slack.
Mind you heartland seems pissed
“We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.”
Closed down the new stories coming out also meant some have been toned down and censored
Much of the material, though, it admits is genuine, including the list of donors – indeed, it’s apologized to the donors whose identities were revealed
Still there is way enough to hang the bastards
This is fake its not from heartland it was slipped in by the same evil bastard who stole the documents That we are not allowed to mention
“Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain- two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”
Who would write such a thing about the lovely people at heart land