This entry was posted on Monday, January 14th, 2013 at 8:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
We just have the wrong attitude in NZ. If you immigrate to a country you should not be a burden on that country. The lucky country can surely be the un-lucky country if you have no work. Wadda you mean bro, they don’t give us Kiwis the dole!
Good on Australia for looking after its citizens first.
We should do the same and stop being so generous with people who have no intention to contribute to our country.
It is time David, that you did one of two things: Bring the Stead on Bain thread to a CLOSE, or BAN the 9, or so, trolls that persist with their attempts at re-litigation, may be(s), might be(s), fictions, lies, discarding of evidence, the invention of the someone told me by phone last week (or will do next week), goats and buggery, bullshit “new evidence” line.
Not one. Not a single bullshit statement made by them has been sustained by the three or four (Nostalgia-NZ, Kanz, Rowan, and Judith) patient folk who have shot them all down, time after time, on the grounds of established fact, and truthful analysis/quotation of the written record and established evidence. I have made several postings, almost all (apart from quoting Binnie and the Thomas Royal Commission) dealing with the record of, and the similarity between, the Bain and Thomas cases (post pardon and not guilty), and the disgraceful attempts by the Molesworth Street Cowboys (similar to those of the Waring Taylor Street mob back in 1980), to ignore reality -they wasted our money (millions upon millions), and LOST.
You have declared a somewhat confusing personal position and one that appears to be intent on protecting Collins from the appalling, and frankly, internationally embarrassing mess, which has seen six senior, internationally respected and totally independent Jurists, lecture both our Minister and Court of Appeal ion procedure, ethics and a simple failure to apply proper judicial principles to the Bain case.
But Collins, as a consequence of her stupidity, has placed in jeopardy the good names of the Government, National, and those who worked hard to put it into office in the belief that they would adhere to the principles embodied in the NP constitution.
Nevertheless, it is your Blog David, so you can and will do as you please. But without us Kiwiblog would not be what it is, would it ?
If you are to continue to allow that JFRB group, in the form of Muggins, Dotcom, Gamefisher, Dennis (‘round the) Horne, Pyschomilt, Ross69, Maxine, Scott Chris, and Kimbo, to continue their idiocy, it would be best for everyone if THEY were to do it elsewhere.
The only present benefit is that their machine gun-like repeat postings, and their dancing around issues and truth, has the benefit oif lifting Kiwiblog to the Number One blog – where it should be, of course.
One might well think, reading Flipper’s comments, that there is only one side to this argument and that the only way to resolve the debate is to shut down one side altogether. I think a more appropriate approach would be to exclude comments from those who are more intent on personal abuse, intolerance and contempt. I wonder if Flipper now comes into that category?
Fuck off Flipper,Bain and Co HAVE TOO prove he was innocent to receive any cash and they simply have not proven that he was innocent.
Collins is 100 percent right to be careful with MY money.
SO until he has come to show that he is actually not the one who did it then he gets no more of my money spent on him.
The Bain page should be replicated for those that want a warming or no page.
That would leave a few of us more interesting people here at GD able to get a word in about important matters.
Give them a nice shinny new thread
as reward for their dedication
Some thing like
All people who wear jumper x must be guilty of a crime
I killed my family because my best friend preferred goats
or killing siblings for fun and profit
I do so like to see other Posters busy with their own personal obsession
mines AGW
whats yours
if you answer homo sex are you are a TRUE Christian
if you answer cricket
The Aussies have lying down to an art form.
Vociferously criticize NZers as a burden, change the rules to treat ALL NZ migrants as an underclass. Violent several international laws on human rights (no problem there, been doing it for the last 200 years or more).
Ex pat NZ cost to AUS $1 Billion, tax take from said NZ bludgers $2.5 Billion.
The very least they could do is allow a lower tax rate for the Kiwi’s for the seriously reduced societal benefits.
Correct me if Im wrong. Those who chose to leave NZ for Australia were not forced at gunpoint and, IIRC from my lawyering days, ignorantia legis neminem excusat. They went of their own free will, knowing, or should have known, what the laws were.
They happily pissed off for coin. Their problem, not mine, not ours. Bleat all you like – you chose to go. Please feel free to stay.
“..change the rules to treat ALL NZ migrants as an underclass”
didn’t the rule changes just mean NZers were treated the same as any other migrants? If they want more entitlements, then apply to become permanent residents, or citizens. I find it difficult to have much sympathy for those few who have lived in Oz for decades, never bothering to become a citizen, and then whine when they find out they are now too old to to qualify for citizenship.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
God I hate living in a Nanny state. Councils make me sick.
Do anything to your house and the council now has the right to come into your house to check smoke alarms! even if youre doing something that has nothing to do with your actual dwelling. like getting a swimming pool permit!
“This provision applies to all new household units, additions and alterations, or a change of use to
existing household units. There are no exceptions to this requirement; this means that if an owner
of a dwelling adds or modifies a dwelling in any way, a building consent shall not be issued until
smoke alarms are shown on consent documentation as per the requirements of clause F7.”
when did we start letting the govt come into our houses for shit like this?
Never mind, dime. Socialist Labour would even dictate the type and wattage of your light bulbs.
Meanwhile, Labour lite just sails on doing nothing to reverse the nasty trend of intrussion in our lives.
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
says it all
Unless you have a handy time machine you could lend them that’s the only option
Same with much science its done on computers in 2013
No one has seen the inside of a star or the electron valance of an atom or the future
Its all done with computer models and humungous equations
@dime got a link for that? It’s like people don’t actually own their own houses anymore, they just rent them from the council. You have to ask the council for permission to do anything to your own property.
I see flipper has made a post re the Bain threads earlier today in which he/she refers to Judith Collins.
In my opinion Judith Collins,because she saw/suspected that the process by which Canadian judge Ian Binnie reached his conclusion was flawed exersised her ministerial prerogative to get a second opinion because the buck stops with her in terms of what gets recommended to Cabinet.
Her integrity is the only thing keeping this issue alive. She could have taken the soft option of saying “The commissioned report from Justice Binnie recommends compensation and that is what I will recommend to cabinet”.
She didn’t do that.
I say hats off for Judith Collins.
Griff, using computer modeling if fine. No problem there. The problem is when the outcomes predicted by the models do not match observation. Empirical evidence should come before computer generated scenarios.
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
Flipper has been one of the key proponents of the Give David Bain the Keys to the City brigade. One has to wonder why he now wants debate to be cut off; is he getting shot down in flames?
KiwiGreg, again, dont care. I suspect those that go are in fact ‘workers’ – they got off their arses to go – and so will actively seek work should they come back. TBH, I think this is summer media beat up territory, and the vast majority of Kiwis in Aus dont give a shit. And good luck to them for going – hell, I did ten years away, best decision I ever made to leave NZ, closely followed by coming back.
So, how many in Labour who bleat about losing people overseas have themselves worked overseas? I can name a few without breaking sweat. Hypocrisy, much?
On another note, I have a new Specialized S-Works Stumpjumper FSR Carbon 29′er. All is well in my world (Attention James S, bike talk thread takeover attempt )
Dissuade teachers from teaching science
is my all time favorite. Lol
Empirical evidence should come before computer generated scenarios.
Yes kea far more weight should be given to Empirical evidence
But then you have nutters like you that then refuse to accept Empirical evidence
You Know its called denial
record melt
record temperatures
record wet
just as predicted prove the models
Flipper
DPF is allowing these trolls so that they can demonstrate their stupidity, complete lack of understanding of common sense and to tell the public of NZ how ignorant they actually are, remember ‘they are always right’ they no better than the PC, Jury, Binnie etc.
Griff, you may have noticed I am sticking with “science” and your fellow AGW alarmists statements.
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“Human beings, as a species,
have no more value than slugs.”
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Rowan,
As I posted earlier,a post you probably didn’t read because you say you don’t read my posts, if it wasn’t for Judith Collins’ integrity the issue of Bain’s compensation would not still be alive. She could have taken the soft option of saying
“The commissioned report from Justice Binnie recommends compensation and that is what I will be recommending to Cabinet”.
But because she saw/suspected that Binnie’s conclusion was flawed she decided to get a second opinion. I say hats off to her for doing that.
Not hard Muggins
The troll who pulls out info out of their arse, claims to have all these ‘conversations’ with key witnesses yet cannot back up a single one, who shops around for the best evidence to fit their story despite it being thoroughly discredited ‘clings to it’, and who it is easy to show that is a liar simply by quoting actual evidence back at them. Also who speculates at large in order to find anything to protect the good name of their ‘idol’, now I wonder who that might be!
Oh yes muggins many thanks to Judys integrity, or should that be shopping around for an opinion that better suits her. As I say JFRB has now acheived something, Binnie read its ‘facts’ and became convinced of Davids innocence.
Well done
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! is a radical environmental advocacy group
In your fucked up little world politicians and journalists may be scientists
And obvious quote mining may support an argument
In reality it is you that it reflects on
Trying to be a tabloid journalist is not debate kea
Its merely proving you have nothing to back your whacky world view.
Keep going kea the more you post on the debate the more you expose your lack of content.
In your fucked up little world politicians and journalists may be scientists
I have posted plenty of quotes from scientists. “Quote mining” is a meaningless term that you use to avoid speakig to the real issue. That along with personal insults and attempts to discredit the source.
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“Each element, plant, insect, fish and animal
represents a certain aspect of Gaia’s – and our – being.
In a way, we are Gaia’s intelligence and awareness
- currently lost in self-destructive madness.
We must acknowledge, respect and love her for being
the Mother she is to us or we deny our very selves.
Nurture the Mother as she nurtures us.”
- Prof. Michael J. Cohen,
Ecopsychologist
Rowan
I take it you referring to yourself when you made that salubrious comment
” The troll who pulls info out of their arse?”
Also ,could you explain the use of the word “their” in that context?
“Quote mining” is a meaningless term that you use to avoid speakig to the real issue.
No kea quote mining is when you take a statement out of context or change the statement to change the meaning
Like not continuing on with “Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.” “I hope that means being both.”
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner’s viewpoint. It’s a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as “contextomy” or “quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning
“Dissuade teachers from teaching science
is my all time favorite. Lol”
That quote is from…. Peter Glieck! Yep, he wrote it himself, and tried to pretend it was from the Heartland Institute. But although he was caught out lying guess what griff says:
DPF, I’m sure that a lot of Bainers would only be too pleased to respond here, as would only be fair, to the utterly biased comment above by Flipper, who has been totally contradicted and ridiculed on the Bain threads as a pompous git and fraud, and has thus disappeared tail between the legs.
We would love to be able to continue the very fruitful Bain debate here, without having to download 2,500 comments every time we do comment. But if we do, it will be because Flipper migrated the issue here, in a comment that screams out for right of reply.
Dirty smarmy tactics Flipper. Come back over and get your licks where you were resoundingly howled down already more than once. Don’t impose further here on the GD regulars, where people will resent you, Flipper, for your transgression, not me Flipper for exercising justified right of reply. Now then, I am going straight back, Flipper. I suggest you STFU on GD right now, on the Bain topic. Or you are soon going to be a very unpopular commenter on GD as well.
It could be that the position of ‘Paramount GD Loopy’ is vacant…..I understand that as from yesterday the Great Blogger is rejoining the fantasy world & will again be fighting the commie hordes in the name of justice, conservatism & Sarah Palin.
In other news there is now a vacancy at the Tauranga Pensioner Flats.
There have now been 2735 comments on the C K Stead on Bain thread,but I get the feeling it is on it’s last legs.
I reckon the message has gone out to the proDavidbainers to stop posting. When you’re in a hole stop digging.
And of course once the proDavd’s stop posting the proRobin’s will as well. Simple as that.
So my prediction is that that thread won’t reach the 3000 mark, maybe not even 2800.
f you are to continue to allow that JFRB group, in the form of Muggins, Dotcom, Gamefisher, Dennis (‘round the) Horne, Pyschomilt, Ross69, Maxine, Scott Chris, and Kimbo, to continue their idiocy, it would be best for everyone if THEY were to do it elsewhere.
Oi! I presume Pyschomilt is meant to be me, in which case I’ll thank you not to class me as belonging to a “JFRB group.”
My comments on that thread are mostly to point out particularly egregious failures of logic (your insistence on comparing David Bain’s case with that of Arthur Allan Thomas is a good example of one – apologies that I didn’t mention it on the thread).
RightNow
Absolutely right now
A example of quote mining me
We have a discussion when I point out that the climate denial nutters have quote mind some stolen e mails
The famous climate gate e mails As still posted on the echo chamber blogs as proof
Despite there being eight different Inquiries and reports into these emails by
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee,Independent Science Assessment Panel,Pennsylvania State University,Independent Climate Change Email Review,United States Environmental Protection Agency,Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce,National Science Foundation
Finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct These are still used today by denial nutters to prove wrong doing when all it proves is nutters
How ever when documents are stolen from the heartland institute proving there links and payments to echo chamber and denial blogs and the nutter non scientists
Right now takes the chairman of heartlands word as gospel in his claim the most damning document is a forgery
True or not right now who cares. ……..we still have all the admitted evidence of how the oil industry funds sites like WUWT and The new Zealand climate science coalition as well as paying for nutter non scientists often trotted out by same to prove their rubbish .
This is all in the KB archives Including my commenting on the strategy WUWT was going to take to minimize the damage taken from their blog before the MSM caught on to the story
And some complain my post dont respect these fuckwits Mad as a bunch of drunk islanders
Dime, Manolo, thank you for your concern. Assuredly I do get outside for much of the day. One of the rare males who can multitask. Did you notice that Cam generously found mine to be Comment of the Week on Whale Oil Beef?
If it’s down to embers now over at the Bain thread, maybe someone needs to go there and pour on some petrol – a separate Bain thread is essential to keep some of the nutters occupied.
Tell you what Manolo. Consider it done. Now you stay the EFF out of Bain threads,
repeatedly visiting there solely to tell us what threads Comments-Constable-Manolo
thinks that we can and cannot comment on. Deal?
You EFF off Manolo from our comments, hypocrite. I AM gone from here.
Conspirawhacky-Griff, given that the fossil fuel industry has funded consensus scientists a hundred times more than any skeptics, I can only conclude that the consensus scientists must be shills for the oil industry since you keep claiming that the pittance any skeptics have received makes them shills. It’s conspirawhacky griff!
You’d have have to be thick as griff to think nobody is getting rich off climate alarmism, whether it’s grant money or the renewable’s industry, or even the insurers/re-insurers hiking their premiums thank you very much suckers.
And some complain my post dont respect these fuckwits Mad as a bunch of drunk islanders
You can quickly see why Griff is so keen to believe in AGW. He does not like people much and regards them as basically evil. (He is not too keen on coloured folk either it seems.) It is this belief , that humans are bad, that drives most climate alarmists.
Griff, do you know what is meant by “Carbon” ? It is ORGANIC material. There is no such thing as a “Carbon Industry”. You made it up. All known life is carbon based. That is a scientific fact. Your as ignorant as people who think there are non-organic vegetables. Lay off the weed and hit the books buddy
muggins, do you think Butcher Bain believes in AGW? I have a feeling he does. He feels socially isolated and issues with people. He ticks all the boxes to be an alarmist.
“Right now admits that the carbon industry funds climate science denial”
The old slip in a few lies and hope nobody notices trick eh griff.
A science denier would be someone who doesn’t follow the scientific method:
Question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Test
Analysis
Replication
External Review
Data recording and sharing
You’re supporting the deniers griff. When empirical data doesn’t match the hypothesis, you’re meant to change the hypothesis, not the data. You’re also meant to record and share the data griff, to assist with replication griff. And external review is useless if it’s only done by your pals – witness the Gergis paper for example.
So yes, the ‘carbon industry’ is funding the science deniers a hundred times more than it ever funded the skeptics.
Don’t be mean and nasty to flipper. It’s just that he can’t count past 3,000 and he’s worried that the thread will grow past his ability to monitor it. That prospect is making his head hurt as much as the prospect of actually reading the reports and Court decisions in order to offer an informed comment
Kea
The problem with that squawk is it exposes your stupidity
I am positive that any one who does not default to nutter understands “carbon industry” even manolo
So you just make your default position obvious
I just want to say that as a prolific poster on the C.K. Stead thread, I totally agree with Flipper.
It has become obvious that the thread has evolved to nothing but a shyte fight (and yes, I include myself in that).
That sort of behaviour lowers the tone of the blog, and achieves very little.
I believe the community has spoken and out of respect for those that find the continuation of that thread and other similar threads objectionable, I chose to back away, not because I was not ‘winning’ or any other such thing. As they say, its not over till fat lady sings, but because it is starting to offend the hosts and guests of this site, and even though I have no problem in ‘offending’ people in times when the positives for ones cause outweigh the offence, I realise that doing so on the C.K. Stead thread, cannot and will not achieve that.
Time to let it go, at least until there is merit to be gained by taking the bull by the horns, and kicking it up the butt. Cheers!
Bleat bleat bleat
Repeat the allegations from the same old sources
Few reading this will respect your views right now
Denial is obvious
Any thing that can be used is with no sense of weight that should be given to the source
All l evidence no matter how solid is denied
All rubbish no matter how transparent is backed
Stand out side your view and read the posts from start to finish today and you and keas denial of the obvious is there for all
I’m thinking of taking an interest in the climate debate in the meantime, what do you reckon?
Do it, Judith.
Concentrate on studying the duration of Finnish summers from 1910 onwards and crosschecking temperatures against 17th century statistics. KB’s resident alarmist will be delighted to blame the “warmth” on AGW.
The predictions are clearly not being supported by reality. Now real scientists would revise their hypothesis, most obviously by giving solar forcing heavier weighting, CO2 forcing less weighting, and adjusting feedbacks. But the deniers of reality just carry on adjusting the historical temperature record.
Of course eventually they get to a point that they can’t continue the deception: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
No net warming for 20 years. Quelle surprise
“But Collins, as a consequence of her stupidity, has placed in jeopardy the good names of the Government, National, and those who worked hard to put it into office in the belief that they would adhere to the principles embodied in the NP constitution.”
@Flipper, you are fighting a totally lost cause. Judith Collins is the best Minister of Justice New Zealand has had in a very long time. She was not Minister of Justice when for some strange reason Simon Power made the dumb decision to pick Binnie. Like most lawyers he did not have the training to use logic.
I do not care about the law. I care about justice. If the law said we must pay a person who on the balance probabilities murdered his family then the law would be wrong. Fortunately, the law does not say this.
It is clear that David will not get a cent. I just hope that Judith chooses a panel that includes a researcher and that a new report includes a fresh interview of David who will not give him a soft ride like Binnie did. The public will then see Judith made the right decision.
This is the 2007 official IPCC projections. If you look at it you’ll see that our actual temperature is tracking closest to the “year 2000 constant concentrations” pathway. This pathway projects about another 0.2 deg C of warming by the year 2100.
So griff, how do you justify predicting over 2.6 deg C? You’d really have to be a nutter to believe that.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1813 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts
“Comparing the expected temperature for 2013-2017 with a single exceptionally warm year (1998), as some reports have done, is just daft. 1998 was around 0.2 degrees warmer than the 1996-2000 average, largely thanks to a massive, once-a-century El Niño event. The IPCC predicted a warming of 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade due to human influence back in 2000. That means the one-off impact of that El Niño event was equivalent to about 20 years of the expected background warming trend So, unsurprisingly, 20 years later, expected temperatures have risen so that an average year is now as warm as that exceptionally hot year.”
We still get the arguments based on the record hot year last century means no warming this century
The same cherry picked bases for argument is all over the Echo Chambers
Nutters can not look past their bias and see the mental gymnastics needed To look past
The record heat of 1998 is now normal
Its called global warming
Shutting down one side of an argument seems to be the theme of the day. Bill has just posted at The Standard on CO2 levels and sea level rises.
The enormity and stupidity of what we have done boggles my brain. And it flops like a knackered fish brought to land when I reflect on politicians and industrialists jostling with one another across national boundaries for the right to expel even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
And we can expect temperatures in line with the Burdigalian – ie 4-6 degrees C above pre-industrial levels by 2040 or 2050 according to the estimates of such conservative institutions as the International Energy Agency, the World Bank and others.
And so I expect that we are in for a horrendously chaotic ride as the climate transitions from one stable state to another stable state. And, as a consequence, I expect millions, or possibly even billions now living to die – many within the memory of somebody, somewhere, who is alive today.
Are you saying the 2007 IPCC projections ignore the record hot year of 1998 griff? The one that you’re so loud to proclaim was caused by natural variation?
Given the intensity with which opposing views on KB’s two favourite topics are held, sometimes by the same people, it will take only the smallest catalyst before the two implode.
The question is, will the debate then be about whether David Bain caused global warming, or whether global warming caused David Bain to snap.
As for the slightly more interesting topic, those applauding Australia for its harsh treatment of NZers and claiming they knew what they were getting into should remember that the rules were changed by caveat in 2001, eagerly signed off by none other than Helen Clark. Sure those who arrived prior to that are still eligible to receive some benefits to which those who arrived later are not, but as the Herald article explains, by no means all of them.
The Australians may well be doing the right thing by Australians, but Clark certainly did not do the right thing by New Zealanders in Australia.
And while I can see some logic to refusing foreigners unemployment benefits (though surely after, say, ten years, their net contribution ought to entitle them to some degree of unemployment support) I cannot see a fair argument for depriving an employed NZ worker who’s been a law-abiding Australian taxpayer of disability support services, for instance.
. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
Though humans love record-breakers, they don’t, on their own, tell us a much about trends — and it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cherry-picking single points.
The question is, will the debate then be about whether David Bain caused global warming, or whether global warming caused David Bain to snap.
Add to that David Bain using his compensation money to get a sex change and enter a same sex marriage with his fiance while writing an opera in favour of voluntary euthanasia in which he stars himself. Enough to make kiwiblog explode.
Trying to avoid the inconvenient question griff?
Did the IPCC predictions/projections which were made AFTER 1998 take into account that 1998 was a “single exceptionally warm year”?
N.B. Anybody attempting to run an AGW denialist arguments will be banned. Them’s the rules. You don’t have to like them. You’ve been warned.
Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco-Gulags To Re-Educate Climate Deniers
A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.
Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change ‘Deniers’
Parncutt has issued — and later retracted after it the public outcry — a manifesto calling for the execution of prominent “Climate Change Deniers”.
RightNow – haha, but there’s some good stuff amongst comments and posts there (similar to here).
And there’s a wealth of amusement. Lprent just lectured someone, abused them, banned them so they had no right of reply (all Standard practice) – but this time he went further and changed the person’s name to something derogatory. Which is yet more hypocrisy as lprent has lectured on how pseudonyms are supposed to be credible identifiers.
And he just pissed on another moderator again, they warned someone but lprent jumped in and overrode that with a ban. The collective is being taken over by a power crazy – that’s so unlike socialists.
irrational question
See the error bars in mets prediction they are the chance of something like 1998 happening again
Note the error bars are not centered this is because they give more chance for extreme warm than extreme cold
If it is part of the temperature record it adds another data point to the history
The met graph is not along term climate prediction its the five year projection of weather
David, it’s time you did one of two things about flipper (I’m sure you just love being told it’s time and that you must to do something). Here are two suggestions. David, are you listening to ME! I am a VERY IMPORTANT PERSON. One option is to put flipper back in the sea because he is already all at sea. The other is to put him back in his cage and feed him chocolate fish and Karamels.
Did the IPCC predictions/projections which were made AFTER 1998 take into account that 1998 was a “single exceptionally warm year”?
You have seen the weather signal removed from the warming trend yet you still do not understand the concept of warming trend in climate compared to yearly change in weather
The “single exceptionally warm year”? of 1998 is now the expected normal year in 2013 this is proof of a warming trend
In 2030′s the single exceptionally warm year”? of 1998 Will be a exceptionally cold year for us.. Global warming..
Read the fucken links and watch the video you are asking a question that does not make sense
Griff, even if you prove the planet is warming (for which there is debateable evidence) you still do not prove AGW. Climatic variations are the norm and future variations may, or may not, suit our current way of life. These variation have always existed and there is no evidence that any changes we are undergoing now are entirelly due to mans influence.There are many other factors at play and future climate is very hard to predict, as is next weeks weather. The evidence for this are the untold failed predictions of the scientists you hold in such high regard. No other area of science would be taken seriously given such a miserable rate success and failed theories. Instead of re-examining the theory, they work on the computer models. It is an incredible situation that these people are not being subject to the riducule they have earned. Astrology makes more accurate predictions than your self “climate scientists.”
Proving warming does not prove AGW. Your forgeting the Anthropomorphic part.
You believe because you want to believe, not on the weight of evidence. Your glorified weathermen are not prophets.
You see the projections? They’re made AFTER 1998 and include observed temperatures.
“That means the one-off impact of that El Niño event was equivalent to about 20 years of the expected background warming trend” – the projection already took the established temperature rise into account. They projected NEW warming. Capiche?
Are you going for the unsubstantiated load of shit award for today squawks?
Climatic variations are the norm : Yes kea we are projecting the present warming trend in global temperatures to result in a Warmer climate then has existed for five million years
future variations may, or may not, suit our current way of life: Future climate will not suit our species is the important point
These variation have always existed and there is no evidence that any changes we are undergoing now are entirely due to mans influence: I have not seen that postulated any where you point being? note you just admitted AGW
untold failed predictions of the scientists: No kea the first estimates of warming published by Mann et al in the eighties are still within their error bars would you like to see some predictions pulled from the nuttersspheres antisience:lol:
Instead of re-examining the theory, they work on the computer models: What do you think computer models are?
ridicule they have earned.: yes kea the ridicule they have earned exists in only one place the nuttersphere
Scientific disciplines are not isolated kea they overlap your ignorance of the science and failure to understand the scientific method is blindingly obvious
RightNow, I think it helps if we look at the mindset people like Griff must maintain in order to promote AGW.
Put yourself in Griff’s shoes…. He begins each day believing that the world is ending. No future for him, no future for his kids, nothing. It must seem a bleak and hopeless world. Why would you bother going on, except to spread the message of doom to the unbelievers. (This situation is not helped by Griff self-medicating with cannabis.)
In order to maintain his beliefs, Griff needs to portray mankind as basically evil and flawed. AGW is mans punishment. When you attempt to reason with him, he thinks your not just wrong, but actively evil. Note the amount of abuse in his posts, the personal attacks, all designed to portray non believers as less than human. So much of Griff’s world view is tied up in the cult, that if he lets go and embraces the truth, he may be afraid of losing his identity.
So spare a thought for our fatalistic doomsayer. His life is a hard one indeed.
Of course he is not the only one. Many who embrace AGW see it as natures retribution for mans evil ways and WANT it to be true. It is for the same reasons people invent religions. It appeals to something deep inside us. Well some of us !
He joins many other scientists in questioning AGW theory. The IPCC is special interest lobby group, entirely funded on AGW fear money. Many many scientist do not support AGW.
Listen and judge for yourselves the evidence presented.
I see the right Hon W Peters is throwing stones at the Hobbit’s financial rewards to Kiwis. A few Years ago I was attending the Kumara Races on the West Coast and a black chopper flew in and landed in front of the crowd. Out climbed the only passenger, a hobbit that was later identified to be Mr. Peters. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Your obsession on 1998 is pointless when it comes to the long term temperature record its just a blip on a trend
It is added to the record but the base line for future predictions is hardly effected as they use an average for any starting point not the high point
play with this to understand the trend and effect of one blip http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Set it to 1996 to 2012 and look at the slope
Change the dates either side and watch the effect of 1998 become less obvious
The more data you include the less effect of the blip on the temperature slope
Climate is long term weather is different year to year within the climate range
You must think KB readers are stupid Griff. They can find hundreds of suitably qualified scientists who do not support AGW theory. This is not the msm and they all can access the web.
Dr David Evans says there has been warming over the last century, and that CO2 contributes to warming.
Of course it’s questionable how much warming occurs as a result of CO2 emissions, but any increase above natural fluctuations must be a concern that merits further serious questioning.
The only certainty is that doing nothing about it from now on would be grossly stupid.
Interesting post in the Truth re arming Police. I have discussed what happened with the Constable who was attacked with police officers both in Aussie and the US. I believe that we have lost the plot and similar acts will occur until the Courts come down real hard on offenders. Not the wet bus ticket.. You naughty boy. It’s got to be jail time.
I have been in a similar situation at 2am in the morning with no backup .. Not so violent and only 2 offenders …where I have drawn my sidearm and defused the situation. I would have been in serious trouble had I not been carrying. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. My call is for Shift Supervisors to open carry and then gradually phase in general carry over several years. Must triple the training.
“The only certainty is that doing nothing about it from now on would be grossly stupid.”
As opposed to the things that have already been done?
Like converting crop land to biofuel causing sharp price rices for staple foods for the poorest people in the world?
Like the billions lost on ‘green’ energy schemes? Solyndra etc
Like the deliberate increases in power prices that affect the poor the worst, who become unable to heat their homes in winter or cool them in summer?
Like the desalination plants built in Australia at a cost of billions that are now mostly mothballed (at further expense)?
I think we’ve at least got past the hump of real chicken little alarmism and are at the point where we can look more rationally at the risk and cost of mitigation. I count the failure of the Chicago Carbon Exchange as one small victory for the world.
I’m not a cricket follower at all, but as far as I can determine the New Zealand team was /is a poor one, it has repeatedly lost, everyone involved with the team is doing the now-acceptable ‘Kiwi’ thing of making excuses and avoiding personal responsibility, and there is ‘nowt else to be said. Do we REALLY need to say anyhing else?
The UK’s Met Office has downgraded its forecast for warming at the Earth’s surface over the next five years. Headlines this week announced that global warming is “at a standstill”. Climate sceptics crowed. But the Met Office said the outlook for later in the century remains unchanged.
What’s the outlook?
Scary. If oceanic cycles do what the Met Office and others expect, then global average air temperatures will stay fairly stable – though still hotter than they have been in the past – until later this decade. The cycles will then flip into a new phase and the oceans will probably start releasing heat instead of soaking it up. Combined with continued accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that could mean that sometime round 2020, warming will start to race away again as the atmosphere makes up for lost time.
The price of internet connection to the rest of the world is dropping again as New Zealand’s only international cable owner, Southern Cross Cables, announces a 20 per cent cut in its capacity prices.
Rex Widerstrom (4,863) Says:
January 14th, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Given the intensity with which opposing views on KB’s two favourite topics are held, sometimes by the same people, it will take only the smallest catalyst before the two implode.
The question is, will the debate then be about whether David Bain caused global warming, or whether global warming caused David Bain to snap.
As for the slightly more interesting topic, those applauding Australia for its harsh treatment of NZers and claiming they knew what they were getting into should remember that the rules were changed by caveat in 2001, eagerly signed off by none other than Helen Clark. Sure those who arrived prior to that are still eligible to receive some benefits to which those who arrived later are not, but as the Herald article explains, by no means all of them.
The Australians may well be doing the right thing by Australians, but Clark certainly did not do the right thing by New Zealanders in Australia.
And while I can see some logic to refusing foreigners unemployment benefits (though surely after, say, ten years, their net contribution ought to entitle them to some degree of unemployment support) I cannot see a fair argument for depriving an employed NZ worker who’s been a law-abiding Australian taxpayer of disability support services, for instance.
—————————
Just like Kiwi’s Austrailians need their unemployment insurance disconnected from their taxation and benefit systems and accorded to their individual accounts for their own benefit.
Recall the arguments way back when one partner loses their job and people struggle to survive despite that person having paid tax for years.
Never trust the govt. to do what’s right and fair. They just simply don’t know how. EVER!
“Your obsession on 1998 is pointless when it comes to the long term temperature record its just a blip on a trend”
I’m more than happy to treat it as such griff, it clearly is the result of natural variation as you point out, which supports the position that natural variation overwhelms anthropogenic forcing.
However, regardless of 1998 being a ‘blip’, the IPCC forecasts from 2000 onwards project ADDITIONAL warming at a rate that we are not experiencing.
The only way you can claim the forecasts to be correct is that they
a) squeak in within the lower bounds of the error bars – suggesting the lower estimates are more likely
b) are correct for a forcing (increase in watts/m^2) from CO2 that leads us towards century scale warming of < 1.5 deg C
Thanks kea for your link to a expert electrical engineer who has published one paper in his entire life that had nothing at all to do with climate
Another of the nutters
Seems he is in business with someone called Joe Nova of echo chamber fame
Funny how often the nutters all link up to the same funding source is it not
Pete, good article, more honest than much I’ve seen.
Are these cycles just something scientists have invented to explain away the lack of recent warming?
No. The Met Office admits that we still know far too little about how these natural cycles work, and how big they are. And climate scientists are open to the charge that they ignored the potential impact of natural variability when it was accelerating global warming. According to Brian Hoskins of Imperial College London, it now looks like natural cycles played a big role in the unexpectedly fast warming of the 1990s.
Featherston, last time and the thousand other times I’ve passed through was a town of bricks and mortor and timber. With no earthquakes reported what is making the town reel?
And while those 8,688 comments on Bain were being posted on Kiwiblog, the odds at ipredict on David Bain being paid compensation, blew out from 6 to 1 to 70 to 1.
So the interfering Manolo aside (who alone contributed many of the 8,688 comments), thank you for your patience (though for the life of me, I can’t work out how any one of those comments actually had any role to play in your lives).
Why? It is well established that top to bottom we’re fucking pathetic. Did you have something to add to that Longknives?
We could of course, always speculate on how these tossers would have gone in the good old amateur days against the likes of Lillee & Thompson, or against a continuous attack from Holding, Marshall, Garner, Croft, as their predominantly amateur predecessors had to; or subsequently against Waqar and Wasim.
Yet in a fully professional era, we have the coach and captain bleating like bitches about “taking positives”, and “working weally weally hard”, or “weally hurting”. They do two things exactly as they are expected to; a hundred things they shouldn’t, and they take a take a positive from that? They fucked up and worked hard in the nets! So? Are we expected to give them credit for that? Pathetic and over-indulged children.
It will be interesting to see if their are any market force responses in the form of pressure on sponsorship money. After all, what successful commercial organisation would want to be associated with this failure? How would any commercial organisation have any confidence in the train-wreck that is NZ cricket administration. Why would you want to associate your brand with that crap? And now we have White and Buchanan embarking on a snipefest. What a fucking shambles.
The conclusion after they explain natural variability to you.
The funny bit at the bottom where they sum it all up
What’s the outlook?
Scary
If oceanic cycles do what the Met Office and others expect, then global average air temperatures will stay fairly stable – though still hotter than they have been in the past – until later this decade. The cycles will then flip into a new phase and the oceans will probably start releasing heat instead of soaking it up. Combined with continued accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that could mean that sometime round 2020, warming will start to race away again as the atmosphere makes up for lost time.
Perhaps you should just fuck off back to the Bain thread as you said you would. Bleating like a bitch here in self-justification is a bit sad. But then hey, if you want to do sad, go for it.
You Know if you Google your last quote dotty it comes up first on Google.
It could give you endless satisfaction if you sat there goggling the last thing you said.
If you do it long enough you could be the worlds expert on your self.
I should be safe over here for a few moments while the hypocrites Manolo and Davincimode are fighting it out on the Stead Thread, where they say I should fuck off back to. Hmmm. I think Manolo’s comment number was 2779, while TDM’s was 2781 and more. Don’t blame me for the comment count there. I’m here.
I have made several postings, almost all (apart from quoting Binnie and the Thomas Royal Commission) dealing with the record of, and the similarity between, the Bain and Thomas cases
Except there are no similarities. Thomas was paid $1 million – he was clearly innocent. David Bain won’t be given a brass razoo. Why would an innocent person lie? None of the Bain cultists have been able to explain why David has told lie after lie after lie.
Aaahhh. Rodders, another Comments-Commando. You too have contributed to the Bain threads more than once, just to tell us to stop commenting. So why shouldn’t I visit here once, while your Executive Members are fouling up the dregs of the Bain thread. Oh silly me. This is a Members Only lounge. While you Executive Members can visit a Bain thread whenever you bleedingwell wish to.
Mikenmild. Another frequent visitor to the Bain threads, telling us we were not welcome to have our Bain threads. There is a distinct pattern emerging from the Executives.
Don’t look at me
I piss everyone of by reacting to every climate change denial post
That the bainites managed to flog it for so long means it has obvious interest for some
The goat thing was pretty fascinating
after all
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him…he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left” (vv. 31–33).
The only certainty is that doing nothing about it from now on would be grossly stupid.
So it would be “grossly stupid” not to try and change natural climatic variation.
Clearly I am dealing with someone not especially well read. Mans attempts at engineering natural processes is one of failure.
Griff, you are a great example of circular logic. AGW is true because the scientists (getting the funding) say it is, therefore they are telling the truth, because AGW is true. Any scientist, no matter how well qualified, who disputes it must be a nutter, because the scientists getting the AGW funding said its true. You have no credibility and as time goes on your kind will be revealed for the liars you are. Your smart enough to see the truth and therefore have no excuse for this carry on.
Anyway, I’ll pop out again now, and see if the Executive-Comments-Commandos have left the now nearly 3,000 comments post (thanks to Executive-Comments-Commandos), and whether it’s safe to return at long last. Sorry to intrude in your Executive-Lounge.
‘Phone rings, woman answers.
Pervert with heavy breathing says, ‘I bet you have a tight arse, with no hair.’
Woman replies ‘Yes, he’s watching the rugby. Who shall I say is calling?’
Kea, what are you suggesting? That we should do no research into climate change and what may or may not cause it? That we should decide now never to try and do anything about any possible adverse effects?
Man’s attempts at mitigating against natural effects have sometimes worked. I wear clothes so I don’t get too sunburnt or cold. I have a roof on my house. I have drainage in my section. They seem to be reasonably successful most of the time.
Pete George, I am suggesting we do not run off half cocked. There is plenty of research going on and aside from the predictable line taken by special interest groups like the IPCC, some of it is real science.
There is no evidence of anything out of order with our climate and trying to make news out of ordinary weather events does not fool the better informed. This whole AGW movement is not motivated by concern for the climate. What is behind it is a desire to end capitalism and general environmental concerns. It is more about politics than environment. Stop channeling Griff and look at the human factors in all this debate. It is there you will find the truth.
Five cannibals get appointed as programmers in an IT company.
During the welcoming ceremony the boss says: “You’re all part of our team now. You can earn good money here, and you can go to the company canteen for something to eat. So don’t trouble the other employees”.
The cannibals promise not to trouble the other employees.
Four weeks later the boss returns and says: “You’re all working very hard and I’m very satisfied with all of you. However one of our cleaners has disappeared. Do any of you know what happened to her?”
The cannibals disavow all knowledge of the missing cleaner.
After the boss has left, the leader of the cannibals says to the others:
“Which of you idiots ate the cleaner?”. A hand raises hesitantly, to
which the leader of the cannibals says: “You fool! For four weeks
we’ve been eating Team Leaders, Managers, and Project Managers so no-one would notice anything, and then you have to go and eat the cleaner!”
“There is no evidence of anything out of order with our climate”
That is not half cocked, it is cockless.
These days I usually avoid climate ‘debates’ here because they’re futile, they have been futile since well before Griff added hisn two bobs worth. Your mindless certainty and petty attacks on anyone you disagree with are the height of that futility. Nothing will be changed by what is said here.
Mikenmild, come back indeed. You have a high opinion of your Executive Lounge. I have higher callings. Today you called me (Flipper), I exercised right of reply. And ever since, you have insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted.
Why on Earth would I want to be here unless it was to exercise right of reply?. This Executive Lounge of yours, it is a fools’ Hell on Earth.
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other’s work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted – and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).
Several subsequent studies confirm that “…the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
Max Keiser Report
Senator Ron Paul has introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2012 ( HR459) to the upset of Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. In August, the House of Representatives passed 327 – 98 on a vote which exceeded the necessary 2/3rd majority.
Paul, who is pushing for “transparency” in America’s relationship with the Fed, said that Americans are “sick and tired of what happened in the bailout and where the wealthy got bailed out and the poor lost their jobs and they lost their homes.”
The Audit legislation will direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is an independent congressional agency, to oversee a full review of the Fed’s monetary policy while conducting an audit of them and their decisions will be turned over to the Federal Open Market Committee.
In July, the first audit of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) was published by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). According to Senator Bernie Sanders : “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world. This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”
The davincimode just made one of those unwelcome visits into the Bain thread again, to keep on making a nuisance of himself for everyone on the entirety of Kiwiblog.
No wonder the comment count just went over 2,800, with all these Comment-Commandos not being able to control their emotions. What were you saying about my INVITED visits here, divinci? You invited YOURSELF onto the Bain thread just to bring trouble.
Now could you stop being so bloody childish. You too Rodders, you infant.
Pete George, have a look at the language used by the alarmists, if you want to see petty attacks. You will see that most of the personal attacks come from the alarmist camp.
Personally my only interest in this is the truth. If you want to support socialism, social justice, the environment, then great, just do it. Do not try and bring those aims about through this AGW bullshit.
As someone who really does care about the environment, I join the founder of Greenpeace and many others, in being appalled at how people with political goals have over run the environmental movement. When AGW is more widely exposed as a fraud, it will be so much harder to promote genuine environmental causes.
This disgusting charade will cause massive harm to both science and the genuine green movement. We can expect that to happen soon.
Griff there is no consensus. There are a small group of scientists who appointed themselves as an authority on the issue. They are all paid, big money, to promote AGW.
I have shown you examples of very well qualified scientists who do not support the theory. These people can speak freely, because they are not in the employ of those who are paid by the AGW industry. If any body does not play the game, they get rid of them pronto, that is how they get “consensus”. They have to, because if the truth comes out, they are all discredited and unemployed.
And who wants employ thousands of discredited weathermen who have been caught committing fraud and telling lies ?
As I mentioned earlier, you freaks are doing huge damage to the long term public perception of environmental advocates. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Just like Kiwi’s Austrailians need their unemployment insurance disconnected from their taxation and benefit systems and accorded to their individual accounts for their own benefit.
Yet another excellent, and blindingly obvious, idea that one must wonder why it hasn’t to at leasat one of the 99/120 geniuses we’ve had representing us since goodness knows when.
nasska:
You’re optimistically assuming that you’ve since improved your performance. Given that any statement of fact made on KB is quickly descended upon by the hordes demanding empirical proof, I’d be wary of making such claims, or before you know it you’ll have to be switching on the webcam while the blogatariat ready their scorecards…
Griff, tell us a bed time story. You know our favourite. The one about BIG OIL & the mysterious “CARBON INDUSTRY” who are conducting an “experiment” on the workers of the world and poisoning Gaia. Tell us how the evil minions have turned independent scientists into mindless slaves and how the brave (and very very well paid) scientists of the IPCC are fighting to save the workers of the world and bring a green revolution and social and climate justice to all.
Although polls in France show a “majority” of 52% in favour of gay marriage, a huge crowd of 340,000 has just gathered at the Eiffel Tower to protest gay marriage. So proud. At last people are standing up for what they believe.
(TheBlaze/AP) — Holding aloft ancient flags and young children, hundreds of thousands of people converged Sunday on the Eiffel Tower to protest the French president’s plan to legalize gay marriage and thus allow same-sex couples to adopt and conceive children.
The opposition to President Francois Hollande’s plan has underscored divisions among the secular-but-Catholic French, especially in more traditional rural areas versus urban enclaves. But while polls show the majority of French still support legalizing gay marriage, that backing gets more lukewarm when children come into play.
The protest march started at three points across Paris, filling boulevards throughout the city as demonstrators walked six kilometers (3 miles) to the grounds of France’s most recognizable monument. Paris police estimated the crowd at 340,000, making it one of the largest demonstrations in Paris since an education protest in 1984.
“This law is going to lead to a change of civilization that we don’t want,” said Philippe Javaloyes, a literature teacher who bused in with 300 people from Franche Comte in the far east. “We have nothing against different ways of living, but we think that a child must grow up with a mother and a father.”
Public opposition spearheaded by religious leaders has chipped away at the popularity of Hollande’s plan in recent months. About 52 percent of French favor legalizing gay marriage, according to a survey released Sunday, down from as high as 65 percent in August.
French civil unions, allowed since 1999, are at least as popular among heterosexuals as among gay and lesbian couples. But that law has no provisions for adoption or assisted reproduction, which are at the heart of the latest debate.
Hollande’s Socialist Party has sidestepped the debate on assisted reproduction, promising to examine it in March after party members split on including it in the latest proposal. That hasn’t assuaged the concerns of many in Sunday’s protest, however, who fear it’s only a matter of time.
“They’re talking about putting into national identity cards Parent 1, Parent 2, Parent 3, Parent 4. Mom, dad and the kids are going to be wiped off the map, and that’s going to be bad for any country, any civilization,” said Melissa Michel, a Franco-American mother of five who was among a group from the south of France on a train reserved specifically for the protest.
Support for gay marriage – and especially adoption by same-sex couples – has been particularly tenuous outside Paris, and people from hundreds of miles from the French capital marched Sunday beneath regional flags with emblems dating back to the Middle Ages, chanting “Daddy, Mommy.”
If the French parliament approves the plan, France would become the 12th country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, and the biggest so far in terms of economic and diplomatic influence.
Harlem Desir, the leader of Hollande’s Socialist Party, said the protest would not affect the proposal’s progress. The Socialists control Parliament, where the bill is expected to be introduced on Tuesday, with a vote following public debate at the end of January.
“The right to protest is protected in our country, but the Socialists are determined to give the legal right to marry and adopt to all those who love each other,” he said. “This is the first time in decades in our country that the right and the extreme right are coming into the streets together to deny new rights to the French.”
Bliimin socialists ey? Still glad to see the ordinary person stand up for what is right.
The link also has video –
Again kea you miss the point
I am not a socialist
In many respects I am politically far right as many who follow kb know
Again you focus on the politics to define the debate
AGW is a scientific debate
The debate on what we do about it is politics
Among scientists there is little doubt except around minor details
only in the nutty world of the denial blogs is there a consensus its not happening
If you read them and telly up the different lines of bullshit you soon see that they continuously contradict their own story’s
Science does not accommodate such contradictions
All the information for the science of AGW is on the public record anyone can have a paper published as long as it reaches the standard of science for accuracy and proof
That nutters dont get published just shows they have no scientific proof for their rubbish
If scientists talk rubbish they dont get jobs or research grants. That is why the nutters become marginalized in the scientific community
If scientists talk rubbish they dont get jobs or research grants. That is why the nutters become marginalized in the scientific community
There are those that would argue the opposite. It is those prepared to talk rubbish, and provide industry with what it wants, or needs, to increase profit margins, that get the jobs and research grants. And more so, an argument that unless potential scholars are prepared to ‘talk the rubbish’ they are limited in becoming ‘Scientists’.
Griff, I know you are not a socialist, but most of the AGW movement are. They influence your thinking.
“All the information for the science of AGW is on the public record”
Yes and many scientists question the conclusion that is AGW.
If everyone thought like you, there would be no scientific advancement at all, and for that matter, no AGW theory. The people who advance scientific knowledge are the ones who question established science. If you know any thing of the history of science, you would know that already. I think you do know that, but do not apply it to AGW, because your position is so entrenched.
We know there is no edit Rex, and a hindered other Executive Loungers We don’t have to be reminded EVERY time someone makes a typo. We already know there is no edit function. Can we drop the “damn the edit” good people. And when you make a typo, pretend there never was an edit, and fix your typo. It should not be difficult for people with the cumulative talents of the Executive Loungers.
Kea (1,592) Says:
January 14th, 2013 at 10:22
If everyone thought like you, there would be no scientific advancement at all, and for that matter, no AGW theory. The people who advance scientific knowledge are the ones who question established science. If you know any thing of the history of science, you would know that already. I think you do know that, but do not apply it to AGW, because your position is so entrenched.
But the prioritising of research in certain levels is not decided by the most urgent or harmful, but rather, by the group that is best able to provide the resources for scientific investigation and advancement, and therefore, knowledge is provided about that particular phenomena, when others, due to lack of attention, are ignored. As such, society becomes informed about an issue that has been decided by human interests, not just scientific but also economical and political. Further action is dictated by whichever interest groups associate themselves with the knowledge, including political and economical, who proceed to disperse information depending on their particular agenda. The particular climate change phenomena, is therefore socially created, however, the actual occurrence, e.g. dying shell fish exists independently of this social creation.
Kea you are just in denial
I have read every climate nutter blog
The logic inconsistency become more obvious the more you know
When I read a blog and identify some thing I know is rubbish I discount the whole blogs content as unreliable
if the climate e mails contained any thing to discredit the scientist involved
It would have been exposed by one of the eight reports into it
the odds are too high that all eight reviews could find no fault especially when they are from respected organizations
The denial blogs still keep posting the emails as proof of wrong doing Go to WUWT its on the home page
Any blog that does so is not honest or reliable for unbiased information
hence the denial network is not a reliable source of information
And…. the patient provides a textbook example of the symptom.
“I find mention of the lack of editing tiresome but people won’t stop! Wah! I want the entire world to conform to my own view of how it ought to be, even an insignificant blog! Wah!”
Alas it seems there is no cure (though I’m betting the photograph is eerily accurate).
Why right now
they reach my level of proof
you will not find unlinked unlabeled graphs or unlinked claims
the debate is transparently moderated in respect to science
they admit mistakes
they welcome scientific input from any source
they dont keep posting known rubbish as fact
They dont run sock puppets to confuse the argument
they dont take money from the carbon industry and lie about it
The thing is griff, I can post a number of rebuttals to things SS have got wrong, but by your rules you can’t read them.
It’s your own personal echo chamber.
So, since we can safely say religion is no basis for discounting someone (eh griff?) then let’s revisit the Petition Project:
“The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.”
Griff, I see the problem. You have been reading “nutter” sites and not listening to the real scientists who disagree with AGW theory.
Not many dispute climate change is real. Most acknowledge mans influence on climate. The point of difference is largely around the degree that mans activities influence climate.
It is really that simple and does not require you to be a “nutter” to understand the science they present.
they dont take money from the carbon industry
There is no such thing as a “Carbon Industry”. There is however a AGW industry and it is big dollars. Who funds the IPCC and all the “scientists” you quote Griff?
Do they have any other way of supporting themselves or paying the mortgage ?
I know oil and coal companies do, because they sell a product the world can not get enough of. The biggest markets in the world all reject climate change and they have a huge market in China and India. The fossil fuel suppliers have not concerns about your silly theory, as the world needs their product. The world does not need unreliable weathermen who tell fibs for money.
Must be off self-medicating for the cognitive dissonance again. Gonna have to be a big joint to get over John Cook being a “fundie nutter”. That’s shot down 50% of his arguments right there.
Kea. these must be the ‘real’ scientists that gwiff the GRIEF is so fond of:
Canada – Dr. Fred Michel, (Paleoclimatologist) director of the Institute of Environmental Science and Associate Professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Canada.
“Climate hysteria has been known to be a sham all along.”
“As someone who has worked in the arctic on topics such as permafrost, groundwater, and Quaternary glacial history, it has always been quite clear that the climate is constantly changing and that natural processes are able to produce very large changes over very short time periods.”
[We need] “to return our focus to the important issues that need to be addressed, which includes being aware of the effects of a changing climate whether it be warmer or colder.”
USA – Dr. Will Happer (Physicist), Princeton and noted energy expert sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming “mistaken”
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect”, said Happer. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.”
Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. “The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Dr Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy (1991). In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn’t support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused, then, Vice President, Al Gore to fire him.
“I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy but I did not need the job that badly”.
“Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer concluded.
Dr Happer’s latest remarks were made as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list
South Africa – Dr. Philip Lloyd, UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, and author of more than 150 refereed publications.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
Canada – Dr Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist) – Professor of Geology – Carlton University
“Many things we thought we knew about the climate system just a few years ago are now proving to be uncertain or quite mistaken.”
“Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleo-productivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others [like Dr Shaviv] began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate.”
Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics [realists].
“There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.”
Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: “on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.”
Dr Patterson also comments: “When the IPCC report was being written, specialists in the field knew there was good evidence this natural amplification of the direct heating effect of the sun could explain recent warming. However, the IPCC left the idea aside under the label “Very Low Scientific Understanding,” partly because of the short length of time for which good data existed. Even though the solar-cosmic ray climate link appeared to many experts to be more meaningful than the CO2 climate connection, skeptics of the cosmic ray theory have argued we are unable to differentiate between the impact of CO2 and solar activity when the only data we have was during a period when both were increasing in unison. Thanks to Veizer and Shaviv, the missing data now has been provided.
Norway – Dr Tom Segalstad (Geologist & Geochemist) UN-PCC Expert Reviewer , a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC:
“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Japan – Dr Kiminori Itoh (Environmental Physical Chemist) Yokohama National University UN-IPCC expert reviewer
“Man-made warming is the worst scientific scandal in history.”
“When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
UK – Dr. Wilson Flood (Chemist), of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a chemistry education consultant, wrote that it is an “unproven hypothesis that rising greenhouse gas levels are largely responsible for climate change” in a June 27, 2007 letter to the Scotsman newspaper.
“….Further Met Office data also shows that global temperatures have actually fallen slightly in the last decade and have shown no statistically significant rise since 1990. Just to cap it all, NASA studies show that atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas methane are falling, not rising. All of the above are easily verifiable and fly in the face of the conventional wisdom. But, hey, we shouldn’t let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of what politicians believe, should we?”
Flood wrote In the May 2006 edition of Education in Chemistry, explaining:
“Of all the scientific disciplines, chemistry equips us best to grasp the essentials of the global warming debate. After all global warming comes down to the absorption of infrared radiation by organic molecules, coupled with the mole concept which allows us to convert tonnes of fossil fuels into tonnes of carbon dioxide.” Flood continued, “Those claiming that the effects of global warming from additional greenhouse gases can already be detected, I believe, are deluding themselves. It would take 5.5Wm-2 to produce a rise of 1K and an 11K rise (sometimes claimed) would need a massive 55W of additional energy for every square metre of the Earth’s surface. There simply is not that amount of energy available still to be absorbed from the Earth’s spectrum, most of which is largely saturated anyway owing to absorption by carbon dioxide and water vapour.” Flood said, “Those who promote apocalyptic global warming claim that the sensitivity is much higher than 0.18K, some claiming 0.75K and even 1.5K.6 These claims are mainly based on a postulated magnifying effect of water vapour but, from a consideration of infrared absorption spectroscopy in relation to the spectrum emitted by a body at 288K, it is not clear how such large values can be achieved.” Flood concluded by noting that the proponents of a climate catastrophe are out “to frighten the population.”
USA – Dr. Chris Walcek (Atmospheric Scientist), a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere. Walcek is a sceptic of man-made global warming fears: “10,000 years ago we were sitting under 2,000 feet of ice right here. It looked like Antarctica right here. And then over a one to two thousand year period, we went into today’s climate and the cause of that change is not, well, nobody has a definitive theory about why that happened,” Walcek said according to a November 6, 2007 article In a separate May 5, 2007 interview, Walcek expanded on his climate skepticism and accused former Vice President Al Gore of having “exaggerated” part of his film. “A lot of the imagery like hurricanes and tornados. And as far as tornados go, there is no evidence at all that tornados are affected. And a recent committee of scientists concluded that there isn’t a strong correlation between climate change and hurricane intensity. A lot of people are saying we’re going to see more Katrina’s and there’s just not much evidence of that. We have had strong hurricanes throughout the last hundred years and we’re probably going to have strong hurricanes once in a while,” Walcek said. “We are over-due for an ice-age if you look at the geological records, we have had a period of not having a thousand feet of ice sitting here in Albany [New York].”
Dr Lubos Motl (Physicist) Formerly of Harvard University
“Recall that most of the 1.1 degree – about 0.7 degrees – has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,” Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007.
“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 — assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time — Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only – a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to.”.
“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children’s game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity.”
USA – Joel Schwartz MS (Planetary Science) from CIT, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) considered that the work by Stephen Schwartz overturned the UN IPCC ‘consensus’ in one fell swoop:”
“New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes
The study’s “result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming,” AEI’s Schwartz explained.
“In other words, there’s hardly any additional warming ‘in the pipeline’ from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth’s average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing,” he added.
“Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific ‘consensus’, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?” AEI’s Schwartz concluded.
Dr. Bruce West , U.S Army Chief Scientist dissented from climate fears in 2008. Dr West faulted the UN IPCC for having: “concluded that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible.” West argued argues many global warming researchers have not adequate modeled the Sun’s impact, according to a June 3, 2008 article. West believes the UN and others have “significantly over-estimated” the “anthropogenic contribution to global warming.” Dr West along with:
Nicola Scafetta of Duke University Physics Department published a March 2008 analysis showing the sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature
USA – Dr John Christy – Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (also Alabama State Climatologist) UN IPCC Lead Author “Public discussion about ‘carbon policy’ or ‘reducing greenhouse gases’ centres around the need to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour.” “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.” “I don’t see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as ‘plant food.’” “Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author) The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know” (from the Latin sciere, to know).” “The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: ‘We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans.’ We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don’t have thermometers marked with ‘this much is human-caused’ and ‘this much is natural”. So, I would have written this conclusion as “Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change.”
USA – Dr. Paul Berenson (Physicist), M.I.T-educated, was the executive secretary of the Defense Science Board for the U.S. Department of Defense, the Scientific Advisor to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and Scientific Advisor to the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. “Water vapor (H2O) is the primary greenhouse gas, contributing roughly 80 % of the greenhouse effect. Without the warming effect of the greenhouse gases, the Earth would be roughly 10 degrees cooler, and probably uninhabitable by humans. It has been estimated that the warming effect of CO2 is roughly one thousandth that of water vapor,” he added. “The analytical models used to predict higher atmospheric CO2 content and temperature have not been validated, and do not predict the measured values from the last 200 years; e.g., the cooling of roughly 1 degree C from about 1940 to 1975. Thus they are not valid and should not be used. They are not valid because they do not include major effects on the climate such as clouds, rain, electric currents, cosmic rays, sun spots, etc.”
USA – Dr Larry Vardiman (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Man-made carbon dioxide is generally thought to produce global warming. However, in a recent article entitled “Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming?” I presented several major reasons why carbon dioxide is probably not the primary cause. But if carbon dioxide is not the cause, then what is? Evidence is accumulating that cosmic rays associated with fluctuations in the sun’s electromagnetic field may be what drives global warming. A new theory called cosmoclimatology that proposes a natural mechanism for climate fluctuations has been developed by Henrik Svensmark, Head of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center. New Zealand -
NZ – Dr Willem de Lange is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Waikato, specialising in coastal oceanography and a UN IPCC expert reviewer and chapter co-author wrote on 23 May 2009: “I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis [of] runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.” “I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.” “The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.” “The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.”
Netherlands – Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm (Economist), UN IPCC expert reviewer, global warming author, and economist, a lecturer at the Netherlands Defense Academy, started out as a man-made global warming believer but later switched his view after conducting climate research. “I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics ….. After that, I changed my mind.” “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise’.”
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, UN IPCC expert reviewer, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas. “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the scientific literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false, they did not correlate with recorded human history.” “Depending on the period in earth’s history that is chosen, the climate will either be warming or cooling. Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points.”
Australia – Dr. Aynsley Kellow, UN IPCC Contributing Author, referee for the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, former professor at the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University. “They [IPCC] really do emphasize the bad news. They’re looking for bad news in all of this.” “The IPCC is assuming rates of economic growth that dwarf the nineteenth-century success of the USA, the twentieth century in Japan and so on. The USA experienced, I think, a nine fold increase in GDP per capita; these are making assumptions about 30-fold increases. So you can question their credibility. But if you do that, you’re questioning the emissions scenarios that are driving the climate models.” “I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: There is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.” “The scientists are in there but it is, after all, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientists are there at the nomination of governments.” Canada – Dr Tad Murty (Oceanographer) adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “Global warming is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole “
Dr. John T. Everett, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer, led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones. a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans, received an award while at NOAA for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries” “It is time for a reality check: warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing, The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change.” “I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming, than the next ice age that will bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated.” “For most life in the oceans, warming means faster growth, reduced energy requirements to stay warm, lower winter mortalities, and wider ranges of distribution,” he explained. “No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.”
USA – Dr Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley – NOT A SCEPTIC – gives his considered views on ‘The Hockey Stick Curve:’ Published by M. Mann and colleagues in 1998 and 1999, the [hockey stick] plot showed that the climate of the Northern Hemisphere had been remarkably constant for 900 years until it suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago – right about the time that human use of fossil fuels began to push up levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The overall shape of the curve resembled a hockey stick laying on its back-a straight part with a sudden bend upwards near the end. The hockey stick was turned from a scientific plot into the most widely reproduced picture of the global warming discussion. The hockey stick figure appears five times in just the IPCC report summary volume alone.’ The version below comes from the influential 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “There was a minor scientific glitch. The hockey stick contradicted previous work that had concluded that there had been a “medieval warm period.” In fact, it disagreed with a plot published by the IPCC itself a decade earlier (in its 1990 report) that showed pronounced warm temperatures from the years 1000 to 1400. It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important. Then last month the situation became even more complex. S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick published a paper in Energy and Environment with a detailed critique of the original hockey stick work. They stated bluntly that the original Mann papers contained “collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects.” Moreover, when they corrected these errors, the medieval warm period came back-strongly. Mann, et al., disagreed. They immediately posted a reply on the Web, with their criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis. Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium. Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious. I talked about this [the Hockey Stick Curve] at length in my December 2003 article [preceding]. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier article was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue. But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken. Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape! That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? [Sceptics may say ‘contrived mathematics’]
And just in case you missed this GRIEF, your flakey “scientific mates” at the UK Met Office are completely impartial about global warming, and delighted that things are not going to warm as fast as they thought. So to draw attention to the good news they waited to release it on the … quietest possible news-day of the year. Oh. But remembering that they are public servants, they had to settle for the second quietest, and release it on the day before Christmas instead.
These are the people who said the science was settled, and the deniers were wrong, except that it wasn’t and they weren’t.
This has been picked up now by Daily Mail, GWPF, Delingpole, The National Post (Canada) and this weekend, The Australian.
Daily Mail
“To put it mildly, it is a matter of enormous public interest that the Met Office has revised its predictions of global warming, whispering that new data suggest there will be none for the next five years. After all, the projection implies that by 2017, despite a colossal increase in carbon emissions, there will have been no rise in the planet’s surface temperature for almost two decades. Why, then, did the Met Office choose to sneak out this intriguing information on Christmas Eve, knowing there would be no newspapers the next day?
The Australian
“Climate results validate sceptics” by Graham Lloyd,
“If the latest Met Office prediction is correct, and it accords far more closely with the observed data than previous predictions, then it will prove to be a lesson in humility,” said David Whitehouse (of the Global Warming Policy Foundation) .
“It will show that the previous predictions that were given so confidently as advice to the UK government and so unquestioningly accepted by the media, were wrong, and that the so-called sceptics who were derided for questioning them were actually on the right track.”
The National Post (Canada) compares it to the sea-change that hit economic theories in the 1970′s
“It’s like Keynesian economic models in the 1970s that kept predicting high inflation would bring down unemployment,” Prof. McKitrick said. “Eventually they were so far off reality that it was no longer a case of trying to fine tune bits that didn’t fit, economists had to admit the underlying theory was wrong and start over.”
Bjorn Lomborg talks of “humility”
“This does not mean that there is no man-made global warming,” said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish academic and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. “But it does mean that we perhaps should not be quite as scared as some people might have been from the mid ’70s to about 2000, when temperatures rose dramatically, because they were probably at least partially rising dramatically because of natural variation, just like they are now stalling because of natural variation.”
He called the revised prediction “a return to the humility that we probably should have had right from the start,” and a reminder that the climate is harder to predict than scientists once “naively” thought.[ The National Post]
Does that mean Lomborg won’t call the sceptics “deniers” now?
Just how flat is that graph?
The UK Met Office has revised its global temperature predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations using it. (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc) It now believes that global temperatures for the period 1950 t0 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average, with an error of +/- 0.15 deg C. This will be achieved if the global average temperature remains the same as it is now. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global temperatures above current levels, and for the 20 years to 2017. The average global temperature increase for the period 1950 – 2017 according to the UK Met office will therefore be just 0.12 deg C per Decade or 1.2 deg C per century with no indication that there is an increase in the warming rate.
Graham Lloyd again from The Australian
“For the sceptical, the Met Office’s near-term predictions are coming home to roost. In 2007, it predicted that by 2014 the global average temperature was expected to have risen by 0.3C compared with 2004, and that half of the years after 2009 were predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year in 1998.
“Given that we have data for three of the five years of that period, and all show no departure from a constant temperature when analysed statistically, this is a prediction that will probably be totally wrong,” Whitehouse said.
“In any case, it is completely at odds with the new forecast.”
The Met Office excuse: but we can do long term predictions
Responding to media reports, the Met Office said “small year-to-year fluctuations such as those we are seeing in the shorter five-year predictions are expected due to natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long-term warming.”
Sorry boys. It won’t wash. Of course, sceptics agree, natural variability could be countering the effect of CO2, but that’s not what you said in 2007 when you were calling them “deniers”. No one at the Met Office added the caveat that we might not have to build the sea-walls or wind farms for ten years, because temperatures might stay the same. No one at the Met Office said (publicly): the skeptics have a point, our models are as good as rune stones at Blackjack. Don’t panic yet!
Instead they said: “The science is settled”. “The models are accurate”. Which we now know wasn’t true. And that’s what matters about this episode, not the 0.02C, and not the failed predictions. What really hurts is that their PR has been so misleading. They can’t escape by acknowledging “genuine gaps in understanding” about “complex climate systems” — not when skeptics have been saying those exact things for two decades and the Met Office has just called them names.
“It’s like Keynesian economic models in the 1970s that kept predicting high inflation would bring down unemployment,” Prof. McKitrick said. “Eventually they were so far off reality that it was no longer a case of trying to fine tune bits that didn’t fit, economists had to admit the underlying theory was wrong and start over.
Like the idea that tax cuts create the growth to balance government budgets without need for spending cuts?
Like the idea that the tax money “lost in space” bailing out banks can be replaced by QE, except none of the bail out money goes to taxpayers or to support funding of services to taxpayers instead it also gets channelled through the financial sector, so the government sector remains starved of money while asset values (preserve of the 1%) are heavily subsidised – transfer of more wealth to those who have invested capital earning CG.
… none of the bail out money or none of the QE money goes to taxpayers (such as paying off national debt) or to support funding of services to taxpayers …
It now believes that global temperatures for the period 1950 t0 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average, with an error of +/- 0.15 deg C. This will be achieved if the global average temperature remains the same as it is now. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global temperatures above current levels, and for the 20 years to 2017. The average global temperature increase for the period 1950 – 2017 according to the UK Met office will therefore be just 0.12 deg C per Decade or 1.2 deg C per century with no indication that there is an increase in the warming rate.
This is the standard of science writing you guys except
do the math and look very carefully at the dates
it just does not make mathematical sense
1950 t0 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average,
as the fifty’s were lower than the seventy’s this statement projects massive increases are forecast between 2000 and 2017
fucken rubbish for fuckwits who really can not even grasp basic math No warming from a post that says +0.43 between 20000 and 2017
there has been a twist to the Tim Ball story. In April of last year, one of his op-eds in the Calgary Herald slamming the science of climate change raised the ire of Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge.
Johnson wrote a letter to the editor questioning Ball’s academic credentials and was quickly sued for defamation. Ball filed suit on September 1 against Johnson and four editors at the Herald for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.
In the statement of defence filed by the Herald on December 7, the paper noted that Ball “is a member of the Friends of Science, a group dedicated to discrediting mainstream scientific beliefs and theories regarding the contribution of human sourced greenhouse gases to global warming”, and that “the Friends of Science and the plaintiff are, at least in part, supported and funded by members of the oil and gas industry who have a vested interest in limiting the impact of the Kyoto Accord on their business.”
The Herald also stated that Ball “has published few articles in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals” and that he “has not conducted research regarding the relationship between climate and elements within the atmosphere”.
And here is how Herald editors characterized the man whose opinion pieces on climate change they had chosen to publish eight times in the past five years: “The plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
Strange. This was not how he was identified in his bylines. In an op-ed in April of last year, the Herald cited him as “a Victoria-based environmental consultant. He was the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years.”
Therein lies the crux of the matter. This is not about freedom of speech. No one is suggesting that a paper should not have the freedom to publish whatever it wants, as long as it is not violating any laws.
The question, instead, is one of properly identified sources—a foundation of good journalism.
Imagine if the next time Ball is cited in the popular press he is identified as “a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry” rather than as a scientist.
January 14th, 2013 at 8:06 am
Poor poor kiwis in Aust.
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10858931
At least Oz are not stupid enuf to provide welfare to Kiwis who fall on hard times, unlike NZ who are too generous.
January 14th, 2013 at 8:09 am
We just have the wrong attitude in NZ. If you immigrate to a country you should not be a burden on that country. The lucky country can surely be the un-lucky country if you have no work. Wadda you mean bro, they don’t give us Kiwis the dole!
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:14 am
Art????
Vote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/culture/visual-arts/8173871/Pataka-director-chased-non-western-art
January 14th, 2013 at 8:15 am
Good on Australia for looking after its citizens first.
Vote:We should do the same and stop being so generous with people who have no intention to contribute to our country.
January 14th, 2013 at 8:23 am
Good morning DPF…
It is time David, that you did one of two things: Bring the Stead on Bain thread to a CLOSE, or BAN the 9, or so, trolls that persist with their attempts at re-litigation, may be(s), might be(s), fictions, lies, discarding of evidence, the invention of the someone told me by phone last week (or will do next week), goats and buggery, bullshit “new evidence” line.
Not one. Not a single bullshit statement made by them has been sustained by the three or four (Nostalgia-NZ, Kanz, Rowan, and Judith) patient folk who have shot them all down, time after time, on the grounds of established fact, and truthful analysis/quotation of the written record and established evidence. I have made several postings, almost all (apart from quoting Binnie and the Thomas Royal Commission) dealing with the record of, and the similarity between, the Bain and Thomas cases (post pardon and not guilty), and the disgraceful attempts by the Molesworth Street Cowboys (similar to those of the Waring Taylor Street mob back in 1980), to ignore reality -they wasted our money (millions upon millions), and LOST.
You have declared a somewhat confusing personal position and one that appears to be intent on protecting Collins from the appalling, and frankly, internationally embarrassing mess, which has seen six senior, internationally respected and totally independent Jurists, lecture both our Minister and Court of Appeal ion procedure, ethics and a simple failure to apply proper judicial principles to the Bain case.
But Collins, as a consequence of her stupidity, has placed in jeopardy the good names of the Government, National, and those who worked hard to put it into office in the belief that they would adhere to the principles embodied in the NP constitution.
Nevertheless, it is your Blog David, so you can and will do as you please. But without us Kiwiblog would not be what it is, would it ?
If you are to continue to allow that JFRB group, in the form of Muggins, Dotcom, Gamefisher, Dennis (‘round the) Horne, Pyschomilt, Ross69, Maxine, Scott Chris, and Kimbo, to continue their idiocy, it would be best for everyone if THEY were to do it elsewhere.
The only present benefit is that their machine gun-like repeat postings, and their dancing around issues and truth, has the benefit oif lifting Kiwiblog to the Number One blog – where it should be, of course.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:35 am
I agree 1000% with flipper. Well said.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:45 am
Golly, I had no idea that it was compulsory for KB commentators to follow Bain posts, whatever next?.
/
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:53 am
flipper – those 9 are just batshit crazy.
be careful not to bring them to a GD thread though *shudder*
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:53 am
Why NZ uniformed soldiers should not march in gay parades. BAM!
http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/why-our-soldiers-should-not-march-in-gay-parades/
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:57 am
flipper, its easy. Ignore them. Works a treat. You should try it.
You will never ever convince an idiot that they are wrong, and merely lower yourself to their level in the attempt.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:59 am
One might well think, reading Flipper’s comments, that there is only one side to this argument and that the only way to resolve the debate is to shut down one side altogether. I think a more appropriate approach would be to exclude comments from those who are more intent on personal abuse, intolerance and contempt. I wonder if Flipper now comes into that category?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:00 am
Fuck off Flipper,Bain and Co HAVE TOO prove he was innocent to receive any cash and they simply have not proven that he was innocent.
Vote:Collins is 100 percent right to be careful with MY money.
SO until he has come to show that he is actually not the one who did it then he gets no more of my money spent on him.
January 14th, 2013 at 9:00 am
Banks will be frothing at the mouth now that the Gay Parade is on again.
Great spectacle of creative energy.
Perhaps he will stay indoors with the curtains pulled hiding from the real world of people.
Vote:what a waste of Taxpayers money he is.
January 14th, 2013 at 9:03 am
About now our PM will be arriving back to consider the latest report from some outfit paid for by the taxpayers and employers.
That report will “advise” him that we need to raise the minimum wage once more again this year.
Just wait and see.
Its a sure bet if ever there was.
Dumb action as well.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:05 am
The Bain page should be replicated for those that want a warming or no page.
Vote:That would leave a few of us more interesting people here at GD able to get a word in about important matters.
January 14th, 2013 at 9:06 am
Viking2
Vote:Ask someone you know in the police what their nick name is for Banks. You will be shocked.
January 14th, 2013 at 9:09 am
Give them a nice shinny new thread
as reward for their dedication
Some thing like
All people who wear jumper x must be guilty of a crime
I killed my family because my best friend preferred goats
or killing siblings for fun and profit
I do so like to see other Posters busy with their own personal obsession
Vote:mines AGW
whats yours
if you answer homo sex are you are a TRUE Christian
if you answer cricket
January 14th, 2013 at 9:10 am
iMP- cant be assed linking to your blog. why shouldnt they march in the parade?
if some gay fella wants to serve his/her country and protect dimes way of life then they can march where they like
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:23 am
Shit DPF, you’re looking good mate!
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:25 am
The Aussies have lying down to an art form.
Vociferously criticize NZers as a burden, change the rules to treat ALL NZ migrants as an underclass. Violent several international laws on human rights (no problem there, been doing it for the last 200 years or more).
Ex pat NZ cost to AUS $1 Billion, tax take from said NZ bludgers $2.5 Billion.
The very least they could do is allow a lower tax rate for the Kiwi’s for the seriously reduced societal benefits.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:26 am
DPF, please ignore Flipper and keep the “nine” happy over there for all time.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:28 am
DPF, are you related to the great John von Neumann?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:29 am
lance – its just not fair wah wah wah if they contribute 2.5 billion then by god they should get that much back! plus the benefits of higher wages etc
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:35 am
Joana: Do tell us what “the police” call John Banks…you are an anonymous commenter on a blog! Be brave! Nothing can happen to you…
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:37 am
Correct me if Im wrong. Those who chose to leave NZ for Australia were not forced at gunpoint and, IIRC from my lawyering days, ignorantia legis neminem excusat. They went of their own free will, knowing, or should have known, what the laws were.
They happily pissed off for coin. Their problem, not mine, not ours. Bleat all you like – you chose to go. Please feel free to stay.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:37 am
Two thousand, six hundred and seventy-one comments on the Bainoholic thread as of right now. I think that’s awesome.
Don’t listen to the haters DPF, let those who will, continue to amuse themselves over there. They’re happy, and it doesn’t really harm anyone.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:39 am
“..change the rules to treat ALL NZ migrants as an underclass”
didn’t the rule changes just mean NZers were treated the same as any other migrants? If they want more entitlements, then apply to become permanent residents, or citizens. I find it difficult to have much sympathy for those few who have lived in Oz for decades, never bothering to become a citizen, and then whine when they find out they are now too old to to qualify for citizenship.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:40 am
Maybe its along the lines of the name that the DPS has for Mr Helen Clarke
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:42 am
No dime
It’s means the Aussies making political gain by bagging Kiwi’s are full of shit.
The details are called… facts. But if you think siting facts is just whining then maybe you should join the Labour party.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:52 am
Did flipper really just ask Kiwiblog to ban anybody who says Bain is guilty?? That would leave about three people!
So much for freedom of speech….
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:56 am
A brief John Von Neumann Biography which also mentioned his work on the atomic bomb during WW2 Manhattan Project.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:58 am
I am not going to say Bain is guilty, but I do believe that Robin Bain did not do it. Happy now flipper:).
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:06 am
Shit happens: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9799204/Major-operation-to-rescue-amorous-couple-who-fell-over-wall.html
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:16 am
@Manolo. Lovely little town is Hawes, I highly recommend a visit to the rope factory as well as the purchase of some Wensleydale Cheese.
Given that the couple were “getting amorous” one is left wondering exactly how much of a euphemism the bloke’s “abdominal injuries” are…*crosses legs*
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:17 am
Today’s Science Quote
Vote:“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
January 14th, 2013 at 10:19 am
“Their problem, not mine, not ours.”
@ hmmo – yeah until they come back to NZ to claim welfare after a lifetime of paying taxes in Australia.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:20 am
Weeds are bloody hard to kill.
Vote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/9797530/As-Hugo-Chavez-fights-for-his-life-Cuba-fears-for-its-future.html
January 14th, 2013 at 10:23 am
God I hate living in a Nanny state. Councils make me sick.
Do anything to your house and the council now has the right to come into your house to check smoke alarms! even if youre doing something that has nothing to do with your actual dwelling. like getting a swimming pool permit!
“This provision applies to all new household units, additions and alterations, or a change of use to
existing household units. There are no exceptions to this requirement; this means that if an owner
of a dwelling adds or modifies a dwelling in any way, a building consent shall not be issued until
smoke alarms are shown on consent documentation as per the requirements of clause F7.”
when did we start letting the govt come into our houses for shit like this?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:27 am
Never mind, dime. Socialist Labour would even dictate the type and wattage of your light bulbs.
Vote:Meanwhile, Labour lite just sails on doing nothing to reverse the nasty trend of intrussion in our lives.
January 14th, 2013 at 10:30 am
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
says it all
Unless you have a handy time machine you could lend them that’s the only option
Same with much science its done on computers in 2013
No one has seen the inside of a star or the electron valance of an atom or the future
Its all done with computer models and humungous equations
Luddite
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:32 am
I
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:33 am
You forgot to add that it’s also done with a few grams of the finest Red Colombian. Way to go, Luddite.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:41 am
But but but Dime we top the Human Freedom index according to this
Count your blessings nobody is telling you when you can take a pee ….. yet
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:41 am
@dime got a link for that? It’s like people don’t actually own their own houses anymore, they just rent them from the council. You have to ask the council for permission to do anything to your own property.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:41 am
I see flipper has made a post re the Bain threads earlier today in which he/she refers to Judith Collins.
In my opinion Judith Collins,because she saw/suspected that the process by which Canadian judge Ian Binnie reached his conclusion was flawed exersised her ministerial prerogative to get a second opinion because the buck stops with her in terms of what gets recommended to Cabinet.
Vote:Her integrity is the only thing keeping this issue alive. She could have taken the soft option of saying “The commissioned report from Justice Binnie recommends compensation and that is what I will recommend to cabinet”.
She didn’t do that.
I say hats off for Judith Collins.
January 14th, 2013 at 10:43 am
Manolo – doesnt that blow your mind?
I cant recall anything else like this. the fuckers actually coming into your home! and for smoke alarms!!!
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:44 am
Griff, using computer modeling if fine. No problem there. The problem is when the outcomes predicted by the models do not match observation. Empirical evidence should come before computer generated scenarios.
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:50 am
Flipper has been one of the key proponents of the Give David Bain the Keys to the City brigade. One has to wonder why he now wants debate to be cut off; is he getting shot down in flames?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:53 am
labrator –
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/buildingpropertyconsents/practicenotes/ac2209domesticsmokealarms.pdf
at least they are exempt from further maintenance checks ffs
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 11:06 am
KiwiGreg, again, dont care. I suspect those that go are in fact ‘workers’ – they got off their arses to go – and so will actively seek work should they come back. TBH, I think this is summer media beat up territory, and the vast majority of Kiwis in Aus dont give a shit. And good luck to them for going – hell, I did ten years away, best decision I ever made to leave NZ, closely followed by coming back.
So, how many in Labour who bleat about losing people overseas have themselves worked overseas? I can name a few without breaking sweat. Hypocrisy, much?
On another note, I have a new Specialized S-Works Stumpjumper FSR Carbon 29′er. All is well in my world
(Attention James S, bike talk thread takeover attempt ) 
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 11:14 am
Do you want me to quote mine
Dissuade teachers from teaching science
is my all time favorite. Lol
Empirical evidence should come before computer generated scenarios.
Yes kea far more weight should be given to Empirical evidence
But then you have nutters like you that then refuse to accept Empirical evidence
You Know its called denial
record melt
record temperatures
record wet
just as predicted prove the models
From a leaked heartland document
Vote:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute
January 14th, 2013 at 11:18 am
Flipper
Vote:DPF is allowing these trolls so that they can demonstrate their stupidity, complete lack of understanding of common sense and to tell the public of NZ how ignorant they actually are, remember ‘they are always right’ they no better than the PC, Jury, Binnie etc.
January 14th, 2013 at 11:30 am
Rowan
Vote:No-one demonstrates their stupidity better than guess who?
January 14th, 2013 at 11:34 am
Griff, you may have noticed I am sticking with “science” and your fellow AGW alarmists statements.
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“Human beings, as a species,
have no more value than slugs.”
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 11:41 am
Rowan,
Vote:As I posted earlier,a post you probably didn’t read because you say you don’t read my posts, if it wasn’t for Judith Collins’ integrity the issue of Bain’s compensation would not still be alive. She could have taken the soft option of saying
“The commissioned report from Justice Binnie recommends compensation and that is what I will be recommending to Cabinet”.
But because she saw/suspected that Binnie’s conclusion was flawed she decided to get a second opinion. I say hats off to her for doing that.
January 14th, 2013 at 11:41 am
Not hard Muggins
Vote:The troll who pulls out info out of their arse, claims to have all these ‘conversations’ with key witnesses yet cannot back up a single one, who shops around for the best evidence to fit their story despite it being thoroughly discredited ‘clings to it’, and who it is easy to show that is a liar simply by quoting actual evidence back at them. Also who speculates at large in order to find anything to protect the good name of their ‘idol’, now I wonder who that might be!
January 14th, 2013 at 11:45 am
Oh yes muggins many thanks to Judys integrity, or should that be shopping around for an opinion that better suits her. As I say JFRB has now acheived something, Binnie read its ‘facts’ and became convinced of Davids innocence.
Vote:Well done
January 14th, 2013 at 11:56 am
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! is a radical environmental advocacy group
In your fucked up little world politicians and journalists may be scientists
And obvious quote mining may support an argument
In reality it is you that it reflects on
Trying to be a tabloid journalist is not debate kea
Its merely proving you have nothing to back your whacky world view.
Keep going kea the more you post on the debate the more you expose your lack of content.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:01 pm
I have posted plenty of quotes from scientists. “Quote mining” is a meaningless term that you use to avoid speakig to the real issue. That along with personal insults and attempts to discredit the source.
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“Each element, plant, insect, fish and animal
Vote:represents a certain aspect of Gaia’s – and our – being.
In a way, we are Gaia’s intelligence and awareness
- currently lost in self-destructive madness.
We must acknowledge, respect and love her for being
the Mother she is to us or we deny our very selves.
Nurture the Mother as she nurtures us.”
- Prof. Michael J. Cohen,
Ecopsychologist
January 14th, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Rowan
Vote:I take it you referring to yourself when you made that salubrious comment
” The troll who pulls info out of their arse?”
Also ,could you explain the use of the word “their” in that context?
January 14th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
The latest Bain thread must be overflowing…..the loopies are taking over GD.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Same asylum – different ward.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:19 pm
“Quote mining” is a meaningless term that you use to avoid speakig to the real issue.
No kea quote mining is when you take a statement out of context or change the statement to change the meaning
Like not continuing on with “Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.” “I hope that means being both.”
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:22 pm
It seems you are a patient man, davinci. Fortunately, I’m not prepared to endure the Bain-obsessed nutters.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
@dime thanks for the link. What incredible crap. We bought the most expensive smoke alarms as recommended by consumer but they don’t fit the criteria:
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:33 pm
David Clark’s bill to Mondayise Waitangi Day and Anzac Day public holidays when they fall on a weekend will continue through parliament this year.
National Business Review have run a reader’s poll on this and it shows fairly strong support for the bill.
POLL: NBR readers verdict on ‘Mondayising’ public holidays
The bill passed the first vote with a slim majority with Peter Dunne joining the Labour, Green, Mana, Maori and Labour parties in support.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Big fail griff
“Dissuade teachers from teaching science
is my all time favorite. Lol”
That quote is from…. Peter Glieck! Yep, he wrote it himself, and tried to pretend it was from the Heartland Institute. But although he was caught out lying guess what griff says:
“True or not who cares” -griff 2012
You’re the proven liar here griff.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:38 pm
DPF, I’m sure that a lot of Bainers would only be too pleased to respond here, as would only be fair, to the utterly biased comment above by Flipper, who has been totally contradicted and ridiculed on the Bain threads as a pompous git and fraud, and has thus disappeared tail between the legs.
We would love to be able to continue the very fruitful Bain debate here, without having to download 2,500 comments every time we do comment. But if we do, it will be because Flipper migrated the issue here, in a comment that screams out for right of reply.
Dirty smarmy tactics Flipper. Come back over and get your licks where you were resoundingly howled down already more than once. Don’t impose further here on the GD regulars, where people will resent you, Flipper, for your transgression, not me Flipper for exercising justified right of reply. Now then, I am going straight back, Flipper. I suggest you STFU on GD right now, on the Bain topic. Or you are soon going to be a very unpopular commenter on GD as well.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
thedavincimode
It could be that the position of ‘Paramount GD Loopy’ is vacant…..I understand that as from yesterday the Great Blogger is rejoining the fantasy world & will again be fighting the commie hordes in the name of justice, conservatism & Sarah Palin.
In other news there is now a vacancy at the Tauranga Pensioner Flats.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:45 pm
“slim majority with Peter Dunne joining the Labour, Green, Mana, Maori and Labour parties in support.” like a good populist.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Besides, what’s so unreasonable about exactly 8,643 comments on 12 Bain threads since 1 December? Not an estimate. It’s an exact count.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Some people are carrying on like it’s at least 9,000, fgs.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Dotcom – get help.
Seriously. or get outside. its summer.
See if you can unplug from the net for 4 hours during the day.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:03 pm
No, do not. Just eff off.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
There have now been 2735 comments on the C K Stead on Bain thread,but I get the feeling it is on it’s last legs.
Vote:I reckon the message has gone out to the proDavidbainers to stop posting. When you’re in a hole stop digging.
And of course once the proDavd’s stop posting the proRobin’s will as well. Simple as that.
So my prediction is that that thread won’t reach the 3000 mark, maybe not even 2800.
January 14th, 2013 at 1:10 pm
f you are to continue to allow that JFRB group, in the form of Muggins, Dotcom, Gamefisher, Dennis (‘round the) Horne, Pyschomilt, Ross69, Maxine, Scott Chris, and Kimbo, to continue their idiocy, it would be best for everyone if THEY were to do it elsewhere.
Oi! I presume Pyschomilt is meant to be me, in which case I’ll thank you not to class me as belonging to a “JFRB group.”
My comments on that thread are mostly to point out particularly egregious failures of logic (your insistence on comparing David Bain’s case with that of Arthur Allan Thomas is a good example of one – apologies that I didn’t mention it on the thread).
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:12 pm
RightNow
Absolutely right now
A example of quote mining me
We have a discussion when I point out that the climate denial nutters have quote mind some stolen e mails
The famous climate gate e mails As still posted on the echo chamber blogs as proof
Despite there being eight different Inquiries and reports into these emails by
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee,Independent Science Assessment Panel,Pennsylvania State University,Independent Climate Change Email Review,United States Environmental Protection Agency,Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce,National Science Foundation
Finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct These are still used today by denial nutters to prove wrong doing when all it proves is nutters
How ever when documents are stolen from the heartland institute proving there links and payments to echo chamber and denial blogs and the nutter non scientists
Right now takes the chairman of heartlands word as gospel in his claim the most damning document is a forgery
True or not right now who cares. ……..we still have all the admitted evidence of how the oil industry funds sites like WUWT and The new Zealand climate science coalition as well as paying for nutter non scientists often trotted out by same to prove their rubbish .
This is all in the KB archives Including my commenting on the strategy WUWT was going to take to minimize the damage taken from their blog before the MSM caught on to the story
And some complain my post dont respect these fuckwits
Mad as a bunch of drunk islanders
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:13 pm
Good letter to today’s Dom Post http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/letters-to-the-editor/8173846/Letter-MPs-who-become-instant-experts
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Dime, Manolo, thank you for your concern. Assuredly I do get outside for much of the day. One of the rare males who can multitask. Did you notice that Cam generously found mine to be Comment of the Week on Whale Oil Beef?
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/01/best-of-whale-army-5/
I do polarise my audiences, it has to be said.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Flipper (1318) says
January 14th, 2013 at 8.23 am:
“Nevertheless, it is your Blog, David, so you can, and will do as you please.”
Yes, he can, and does.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:21 pm
If it’s down to embers now over at the Bain thread, maybe someone needs to go there and pour on some petrol – a separate Bain thread is essential to keep some of the nutters occupied.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Manolo tells me to eff off.
Tell you what Manolo. Consider it done. Now you stay the EFF out of Bain threads,
repeatedly visiting there solely to tell us what threads Comments-Constable-Manolo
thinks that we can and cannot comment on. Deal?
You EFF off Manolo from our comments, hypocrite. I AM gone from here.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Conspirawhacky-Griff, given that the fossil fuel industry has funded consensus scientists a hundred times more than any skeptics, I can only conclude that the consensus scientists must be shills for the oil industry since you keep claiming that the pittance any skeptics have received makes them shills. It’s conspirawhacky griff!
You’d have have to be thick as griff to think nobody is getting rich off climate alarmism, whether it’s grant money or the renewable’s industry, or even the insurers/re-insurers hiking their premiums thank you very much suckers.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
You can quickly see why Griff is so keen to believe in AGW. He does not like people much and regards them as basically evil. (He is not too keen on coloured folk either it seems.) It is this belief , that humans are bad, that drives most climate alarmists.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:43 pm
So Old switchery witchery trick
Right now admits that the carbon industry funds climate science denial
Why find the denial right now ?
Because by doing so they have successfully stalled any chance of a reduction of carbon usage.
keeping the profits flowing for the carbon industry for a few more years
The more unfounded doubt they create: The more the globe will warm: The more the catastrophic effects the nutters talk about is likely to happen
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Jokes are starting early today?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Griff, do you know what is meant by “Carbon” ? It is ORGANIC material. There is no such thing as a “Carbon Industry”. You made it up. All known life is carbon based. That is a scientific fact. Your as ignorant as people who think there are non-organic vegetables. Lay off the weed and hit the books buddy
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:49 pm
PG, no it is actually far from funny what these social misfits would impose on us, if they get their way.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:51 pm
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/eyewitness-testimony-of-plan-to-commit-crime-while-on-paper-run
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:54 pm
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/broken-spectacles-were-found-in-davids-room-which-david-is-likely-to-have-worn
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:54 pm
muggins, do you think Butcher Bain believes in AGW? I have a feeling he does. He feels socially isolated and issues with people. He ticks all the boxes to be an alarmist.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:55 pm
“Right now admits that the carbon industry funds climate science denial”
The old slip in a few lies and hope nobody notices trick eh griff.
A science denier would be someone who doesn’t follow the scientific method:
Question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Test
Analysis
Replication
External Review
Data recording and sharing
You’re supporting the deniers griff. When empirical data doesn’t match the hypothesis, you’re meant to change the hypothesis, not the data. You’re also meant to record and share the data griff, to assist with replication griff. And external review is useless if it’s only done by your pals – witness the Gergis paper for example.
So yes, the ‘carbon industry’ is funding the science deniers a hundred times more than it ever funded the skeptics.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:56 pm
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/eyewitness-testimony-of-david-intimidating-his-family-with-his-gun
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Don’t be mean and nasty to flipper. It’s just that he can’t count past 3,000 and he’s worried that the thread will grow past his ability to monitor it. That prospect is making his head hurt as much as the prospect of actually reading the reports and Court decisions in order to offer an informed comment
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:57 pm
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-had-injuries-consistent-with-a-fight-with-stephen
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
muggins
You’re in the wrong ward. Back to your bed immediately!!
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-rifle-magazine-appeared-to-be-planted-next-to-robin-bains-body
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Kea
Vote:The problem with that squawk is it exposes your stupidity
I am positive that any one who does not default to nutter understands “carbon industry” even manolo
So you just make your default position obvious
January 14th, 2013 at 2:01 pm
oops,
Vote:sorry davinci,
flipper went and put me off track.
My names Goff and I’m off.
January 14th, 2013 at 2:02 pm
I just want to say that as a prolific poster on the C.K. Stead thread, I totally agree with Flipper.
It has become obvious that the thread has evolved to nothing but a shyte fight (and yes, I include myself in that).
That sort of behaviour lowers the tone of the blog, and achieves very little.
I believe the community has spoken and out of respect for those that find the continuation of that thread and other similar threads objectionable, I chose to back away, not because I was not ‘winning’ or any other such thing. As they say, its not over till fat lady sings, but because it is starting to offend the hosts and guests of this site, and even though I have no problem in ‘offending’ people in times when the positives for ones cause outweigh the offence, I realise that doing so on the C.K. Stead thread, cannot and will not achieve that.
Time to let it go, at least until there is merit to be gained by taking the bull by the horns, and kicking it up the butt. Cheers!
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Yeah,
Vote:and I kicked your butt, Judith.
January 14th, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Sorry
Vote:davincimode.
I saw my old mate Judith had posted and I couldn’t resist.
January 14th, 2013 at 2:09 pm
The bastards have the cheek to even ask: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/13/egypt-president-renews-call-to-free-blind-sheikh/
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 2:12 pm
judith – 683 comments already? get a life!
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Bleat bleat bleat
Repeat the allegations from the same old sources
Few reading this will respect your views right now
Denial is obvious
Any thing that can be used is with no sense of weight that should be given to the source
All l evidence no matter how solid is denied
All rubbish no matter how transparent is backed
Stand out side your view and read the posts from start to finish today and you and keas denial of the obvious is there for all
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 2:16 pm
dime (5,316) Says:
January 14th, 2013 at 2:12 pm
judith – 683 comments already? get a life!
————————–
28 days to go before I do.
Vote:I’m thinking of taking an interest in the climate debate in the meantime, what do you reckon?
January 14th, 2013 at 2:21 pm
Please could we have a separate climate change thread as well?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Do it, Judith.
Concentrate on studying the duration of Finnish summers from 1910 onwards and crosschecking temperatures against 17th century statistics. KB’s resident alarmist will be delighted to blame the “warmth” on AGW.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 2:25 pm
griff: “baa baa baa”
The predictions are clearly not being supported by reality. Now real scientists would revise their hypothesis, most obviously by giving solar forcing heavier weighting, CO2 forcing less weighting, and adjusting feedbacks. But the deniers of reality just carry on adjusting the historical temperature record.
Vote:Of course eventually they get to a point that they can’t continue the deception:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
No net warming for 20 years. Quelle surprise
January 14th, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Griff, I invite you to explain to KB readers what “Carbon” is in this context.
Oh and Griff, please stick with the scientific cosensus, no putting your own spin on things.
Theres a good chap
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 2:32 pm
“But Collins, as a consequence of her stupidity, has placed in jeopardy the good names of the Government, National, and those who worked hard to put it into office in the belief that they would adhere to the principles embodied in the NP constitution.”
@Flipper, you are fighting a totally lost cause. Judith Collins is the best Minister of Justice New Zealand has had in a very long time. She was not Minister of Justice when for some strange reason Simon Power made the dumb decision to pick Binnie. Like most lawyers he did not have the training to use logic.
I do not care about the law. I care about justice. If the law said we must pay a person who on the balance probabilities murdered his family then the law would be wrong. Fortunately, the law does not say this.
It is clear that David will not get a cent. I just hope that Judith chooses a panel that includes a researcher and that a new report includes a fresh interview of David who will not give him a soft ride like Binnie did. The public will then see Judith made the right decision.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 2:36 pm
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-spm-5.html
This is the 2007 official IPCC projections. If you look at it you’ll see that our actual temperature is tracking closest to the “year 2000 constant concentrations” pathway. This pathway projects about another 0.2 deg C of warming by the year 2100.
So griff, how do you justify predicting over 2.6 deg C? You’d really have to be a nutter to believe that.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:01 pm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1813
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts
“Comparing the expected temperature for 2013-2017 with a single exceptionally warm year (1998), as some reports have done, is just daft. 1998 was around 0.2 degrees warmer than the 1996-2000 average, largely thanks to a massive, once-a-century El Niño event. The IPCC predicted a warming of 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade due to human influence back in 2000. That means the one-off impact of that El Niño event was equivalent to about 20 years of the expected background warming trend So, unsurprisingly, 20 years later, expected temperatures have risen so that an average year is now as warm as that exceptionally hot year.”
We still get the arguments based on the record hot year last century means no warming this century
Vote:The same cherry picked bases for argument is all over the Echo Chambers
Nutters can not look past their bias and see the mental gymnastics needed To look past
The record heat of 1998 is now normal
Its called global warming
January 14th, 2013 at 3:06 pm
That Red Colombian weed must be very good, because is sending the alarmist him miles and miles high. Enjoy.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Shutting down one side of an argument seems to be the theme of the day. Bill has just posted at The Standard on CO2 levels and sea level rises.
Saying that here would generate a bit of debate, but the post ends with a different approach to open debate:
I think Bill makes some reasonable (and debatable) points, but then tries to squash any opposing views. But at least he’s being open about that.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:11 pm
Are you saying the 2007 IPCC projections ignore the record hot year of 1998 griff? The one that you’re so loud to proclaim was caused by natural variation?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:14 pm
“The IPCC predicted a warming of 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade due to human influence back in 2000.”
Wake up FFS griff. They made these predictions AFTER the ‘record hot year’ of 1998 – they knew about it, it was factored IN to the predictions.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:15 pm
PG – do you think perhaps it’s time to seek professional help for your masochistic vice of visiting the slandard?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Given the intensity with which opposing views on KB’s two favourite topics are held, sometimes by the same people, it will take only the smallest catalyst before the two implode.
The question is, will the debate then be about whether David Bain caused global warming, or whether global warming caused David Bain to snap.
As for the slightly more interesting topic, those applauding Australia for its harsh treatment of NZers and claiming they knew what they were getting into should remember that the rules were changed by caveat in 2001, eagerly signed off by none other than Helen Clark. Sure those who arrived prior to that are still eligible to receive some benefits to which those who arrived later are not, but as the Herald article explains, by no means all of them.
The Australians may well be doing the right thing by Australians, but Clark certainly did not do the right thing by New Zealanders in Australia.
And while I can see some logic to refusing foreigners unemployment benefits (though surely after, say, ten years, their net contribution ought to entitle them to some degree of unemployment support) I cannot see a fair argument for depriving an employed NZ worker who’s been a law-abiding Australian taxpayer of disability support services, for instance.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Wasn’t David Benson-Pope from down South too? Is masochism a Dunedin thing?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:20 pm
@ Rex “The question is, will the debate then be about whether David Bain caused global warming, or whether global warming caused David Bain to snap.”
LOL
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:24 pm
. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
Though humans love record-breakers, they don’t, on their own, tell us a much about trends — and it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cherry-picking single points.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Any more debate over this will take into account the information in the video
or its pointless because you are just making stuff up
Then the default is nutter
Because you are just ignoring facts shown to you repeatedly in the past
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Add to that David Bain using his compensation money to get a sex change and enter a same sex marriage with his fiance while writing an opera in favour of voluntary euthanasia in which he stars himself. Enough to make kiwiblog explode.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:30 pm
You forgot the role of the catholic church and the fact that Obama is a Kenyan muslim
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Trying to avoid the inconvenient question griff?
Vote:Did the IPCC predictions/projections which were made AFTER 1998 take into account that 1998 was a “single exceptionally warm year”?
January 14th, 2013 at 3:48 pm
eszett:Add to that David Bain using his compensation money to get a sex change and enter a same sex marriage with his fiance
Or, Joe Karam proposing to Bain.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco-Gulags To Re-Educate Climate Deniers
A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.
Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change ‘Deniers’
Parncutt has issued — and later retracted after it the public outcry — a manifesto calling for the execution of prominent “Climate Change Deniers”.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html#ixzz2HulbMpBc
Vote:Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
January 14th, 2013 at 3:54 pm
RightNow – haha, but there’s some good stuff amongst comments and posts there (similar to here).
And there’s a wealth of amusement. Lprent just lectured someone, abused them, banned them so they had no right of reply (all Standard practice) – but this time he went further and changed the person’s name to something derogatory. Which is yet more hypocrisy as lprent has lectured on how pseudonyms are supposed to be credible identifiers.
And he just pissed on another moderator again, they warned someone but lprent jumped in and overrode that with a ban. The collective is being taken over by a power crazy – that’s so unlike socialists.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Rex: That’s the funniest thing I have seen on here for a while….
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:06 pm
irrational question
See the error bars in mets prediction they are the chance of something like 1998 happening again
Note the error bars are not centered this is because they give more chance for extreme warm than extreme cold
If it is part of the temperature record it adds another data point to the history
The met graph is not along term climate prediction its the five year projection of weather
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
why keep asking questions that are already answered repeatedly in my links?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:10 pm
Still avoiding the question griff. Can’t you find the ‘right’ answer?
Did the IPCC predictions/projections which were made AFTER 1998 take into account that 1998 was a “single exceptionally warm year”?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:15 pm
Don’t bother him, RightNow. The alarmist is too busy having a deep toke.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Perhaps I triggered some sort of cognitive dissonance that requires self medication?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:33 pm
So it’s another action by central government rather than one by councils.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:38 pm
David, it’s time you did one of two things about flipper (I’m sure you just love being told it’s time and that you must to do something). Here are two suggestions. David, are you listening to ME! I am a VERY IMPORTANT PERSON. One option is to put flipper back in the sea because he is already all at sea. The other is to put him back in his cage and feed him chocolate fish and Karamels.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Did the IPCC predictions/projections which were made AFTER 1998 take into account that 1998 was a “single exceptionally warm year”?
You have seen the weather signal removed from the warming trend yet you still do not understand the concept of warming trend in climate compared to yearly change in weather
The “single exceptionally warm year”? of 1998 is now the expected normal year in 2013 this is proof of a warming trend
In 2030′s the single exceptionally warm year”? of 1998 Will be a exceptionally cold year for us.. Global warming..
Read the fucken links and watch the video you are asking a question that does not make sense
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Climate change for fundies
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/the-next-page-fifty-shades-of-2012-the-year-in-cartoons-by-rob-rogers-668380/
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:50 pm
http://d4493f2df0d1b95cfc62-773cd17a86049dd672fafb96394debed.r5.cf2.rackcdn.com/2012/364/271/fifty-shades-of-climate-change_original.jpg
Vote:ops wrong link
January 14th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Griff, even if you prove the planet is warming (for which there is debateable evidence) you still do not prove AGW. Climatic variations are the norm and future variations may, or may not, suit our current way of life. These variation have always existed and there is no evidence that any changes we are undergoing now are entirelly due to mans influence.There are many other factors at play and future climate is very hard to predict, as is next weeks weather. The evidence for this are the untold failed predictions of the scientists you hold in such high regard. No other area of science would be taken seriously given such a miserable rate success and failed theories. Instead of re-examining the theory, they work on the computer models. It is an incredible situation that these people are not being subject to the riducule they have earned. Astrology makes more accurate predictions than your self “climate scientists.”
Proving warming does not prove AGW. Your forgeting the Anthropomorphic part.
You believe because you want to believe, not on the weight of evidence. Your glorified weathermen are not prophets.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 4:55 pm
What is it that you are finding hard to make sense of griff?
Look at the graph on the right at this link http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-spm-5.html
You see the projections? They’re made AFTER 1998 and include observed temperatures.
“That means the one-off impact of that El Niño event was equivalent to about 20 years of the expected background warming trend” – the projection already took the established temperature rise into account. They projected NEW warming. Capiche?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Griff 4.50pm – very good, here’s one in return
Vote:http://bishophill.squarespace.com/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=/storage/DavidRose_is_wrong.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1358113001232
January 14th, 2013 at 5:28 pm
squawk poops another load of poop
Are you going for the unsubstantiated load of shit award for today squawks?
Climatic variations are the norm : Yes kea we are projecting the present warming trend in global temperatures to result in a Warmer climate then has existed for five million years
future variations may, or may not, suit our current way of life: Future climate will not suit our species is the important point
These variation have always existed and there is no evidence that any changes we are undergoing now are entirely due to mans influence: I have not seen that postulated any where you point being? note you just admitted AGW
untold failed predictions of the scientists: No kea the first estimates of warming published by Mann et al in the eighties are still within their error bars
would you like to see some predictions pulled from the nuttersspheres antisience:lol:
Instead of re-examining the theory, they work on the computer models: What do you think computer models are?
ridicule they have earned.: yes kea the ridicule they have earned exists in only one place the nuttersphere
Scientific disciplines are not isolated kea they overlap your ignorance of the science and failure to understand the scientific method is blindingly obvious
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 5:31 pm
RightNow, I think it helps if we look at the mindset people like Griff must maintain in order to promote AGW.
Put yourself in Griff’s shoes…. He begins each day believing that the world is ending. No future for him, no future for his kids, nothing. It must seem a bleak and hopeless world. Why would you bother going on, except to spread the message of doom to the unbelievers. (This situation is not helped by Griff self-medicating with cannabis.)
In order to maintain his beliefs, Griff needs to portray mankind as basically evil and flawed. AGW is mans punishment. When you attempt to reason with him, he thinks your not just wrong, but actively evil. Note the amount of abuse in his posts, the personal attacks, all designed to portray non believers as less than human. So much of Griff’s world view is tied up in the cult, that if he lets go and embraces the truth, he may be afraid of losing his identity.
So spare a thought for our fatalistic doomsayer. His life is a hard one indeed.
Of course he is not the only one. Many who embrace AGW see it as natures retribution for mans evil ways and WANT it to be true. It is for the same reasons people invent religions. It appeals to something deep inside us. Well some of us !
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 5:59 pm
Promoting Hillary for 2016? http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/01/13/golden-globes-ben-affleck-and-katheryn-bigelow-expected-to-have-better-luck/
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Here is a guy who knows a thing or two about climate.
Dr David Evans. Australian Greenhouse Office – main modeler of carbon in Australias bioshere…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plr-hTRQ2_c
He joins many other scientists in questioning AGW theory. The IPCC is special interest lobby group, entirely funded on AGW fear money. Many many scientist do not support AGW.
Listen and judge for yourselves the evidence presented.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:11 pm
I thought you might like to know what you have had to endure.
Stead Thread = 2770 comments (100 demerits handed out).
12 Bain threads since 1 December = 8688 comments
Goats = 353 (goats oral = 47) (goats shag = 86)
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:16 pm
Yes, Dotcom. You’re a sane and free of obsessions person. I’m Napoleon.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:19 pm
I see the right Hon W Peters is throwing stones at the Hobbit’s financial rewards to Kiwis. A few Years ago I was attending the Kumara Races on the West Coast and a black chopper flew in and landed in front of the crowd. Out climbed the only passenger, a hobbit that was later identified to be Mr. Peters. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:21 pm
Your obsession on 1998 is pointless when it comes to the long term temperature record its just a blip on a trend
It is added to the record but the base line for future predictions is hardly effected as they use an average for any starting point not the high point
play with this to understand the trend and effect of one blip
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Set it to 1996 to 2012 and look at the slope
Change the dates either side and watch the effect of 1998 become less obvious
The more data you include the less effect of the blip on the temperature slope
Climate is long term weather is different year to year within the climate range
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Multiculturalism in Brisbane: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/racial-tensions-high-at-logan-report/story-e6frfku9-1226553243198
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:27 pm
So why do you keep banging on & on about a few warm days in Aussie ? (while ignoring freezing cold in other parts of the world)
You know you wrong and so does this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plr-hTRQ2_c
You must think KB readers are stupid Griff. They can find hundreds of suitably qualified scientists who do not support AGW theory. This is not the msm and they all can access the web.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Dr David Evans says there has been warming over the last century, and that CO2 contributes to warming.
Of course it’s questionable how much warming occurs as a result of CO2 emissions, but any increase above natural fluctuations must be a concern that merits further serious questioning.
The only certainty is that doing nothing about it from now on would be grossly stupid.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Well done PG, but grossly stupid seems to be Kea’s strong suit.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:35 pm
Hi David G.
Interesting post in the Truth re arming Police. I have discussed what happened with the Constable who was attacked with police officers both in Aussie and the US. I believe that we have lost the plot and similar acts will occur until the Courts come down real hard on offenders. Not the wet bus ticket.. You naughty boy. It’s got to be jail time.
I have been in a similar situation at 2am in the morning with no backup .. Not so violent and only 2 offenders …where I have drawn my sidearm and defused the situation. I would have been in serious trouble had I not been carrying. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. My call is for Shift Supervisors to open carry and then gradually phase in general carry over several years. Must triple the training.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:36 pm
Can we get back to talking about cricket?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Make Watling captain?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:41 pm
“The only certainty is that doing nothing about it from now on would be grossly stupid.”
As opposed to the things that have already been done?
Like converting crop land to biofuel causing sharp price rices for staple foods for the poorest people in the world?
Like the billions lost on ‘green’ energy schemes? Solyndra etc
Like the deliberate increases in power prices that affect the poor the worst, who become unable to heat their homes in winter or cool them in summer?
Like the desalination plants built in Australia at a cost of billions that are now mostly mothballed (at further expense)?
I think we’ve at least got past the hump of real chicken little alarmism and are at the point where we can look more rationally at the risk and cost of mitigation. I count the failure of the Chicago Carbon Exchange as one small victory for the world.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Lk
Re” Can we get back to talking about cricket?’
I’m not a cricket follower at all, but as far as I can determine the New Zealand team was /is a poor one, it has repeatedly lost, everyone involved with the team is doing the now-acceptable ‘Kiwi’ thing of making excuses and avoiding personal responsibility, and there is ‘nowt else to be said. Do we REALLY need to say anyhing else?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
New Scientest reports:
There is still plenty to be concerned about.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
Cricket !!!! Who fucken cares.
More fun watching turtles mating.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:44 pm
The price of internet connection to the rest of the world is dropping again as New Zealand’s only international cable owner, Southern Cross Cables, announces a 20 per cent cut in its capacity prices.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10859054
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:45 pm
RightNow – yes, mistakes have been made, so we need to keep learning from what’s gone wrong and what is the best approaches are from now.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:48 pm
Rex Widerstrom (4,863) Says:
January 14th, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Given the intensity with which opposing views on KB’s two favourite topics are held, sometimes by the same people, it will take only the smallest catalyst before the two implode.
The question is, will the debate then be about whether David Bain caused global warming, or whether global warming caused David Bain to snap.
As for the slightly more interesting topic, those applauding Australia for its harsh treatment of NZers and claiming they knew what they were getting into should remember that the rules were changed by caveat in 2001, eagerly signed off by none other than Helen Clark. Sure those who arrived prior to that are still eligible to receive some benefits to which those who arrived later are not, but as the Herald article explains, by no means all of them.
The Australians may well be doing the right thing by Australians, but Clark certainly did not do the right thing by New Zealanders in Australia.
And while I can see some logic to refusing foreigners unemployment benefits (though surely after, say, ten years, their net contribution ought to entitle them to some degree of unemployment support) I cannot see a fair argument for depriving an employed NZ worker who’s been a law-abiding Australian taxpayer of disability support services, for instance.
Vote:—————————
Just like Kiwi’s Austrailians need their unemployment insurance disconnected from their taxation and benefit systems and accorded to their individual accounts for their own benefit.
Recall the arguments way back when one partner loses their job and people struggle to survive despite that person having paid tax for years.
Never trust the govt. to do what’s right and fair. They just simply don’t know how. EVER!
January 14th, 2013 at 6:49 pm
RightNow 6:41 +1
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:49 pm
“Your obsession on 1998 is pointless when it comes to the long term temperature record its just a blip on a trend”
I’m more than happy to treat it as such griff, it clearly is the result of natural variation as you point out, which supports the position that natural variation overwhelms anthropogenic forcing.
However, regardless of 1998 being a ‘blip’, the IPCC forecasts from 2000 onwards project ADDITIONAL warming at a rate that we are not experiencing.
Vote:The only way you can claim the forecasts to be correct is that they
a) squeak in within the lower bounds of the error bars – suggesting the lower estimates are more likely
b) are correct for a forcing (increase in watts/m^2) from CO2 that leads us towards century scale warming of < 1.5 deg C
January 14th, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Thanks kea for your link to a expert electrical engineer who has published one paper in his entire life that had nothing at all to do with climate
Vote:Another of the nutters
Seems he is in business with someone called Joe Nova of echo chamber fame
Funny how often the nutters all link up to the same funding source is it not
January 14th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
Pete, good article, more honest than much I’ve seen.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:54 pm
The Queens English from the NZ Herald with the aid of the NZ education system.
Man robs dairy armed with cricket bat
question: Was the dairy better with the cricket bat than the Black Caps appear to be?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:54 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10859032
the link
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 6:58 pm
And another.
Featherston reeling after fatal assault
Featherston, last time and the thousand other times I’ve passed through was a town of bricks and mortor and timber. With no earthquakes reported what is making the town reel?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10858983
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:08 pm
And while those 8,688 comments on Bain were being posted on Kiwiblog, the odds at ipredict on David Bain being paid compensation, blew out from 6 to 1 to 70 to 1.
So the interfering Manolo aside (who alone contributed many of the 8,688 comments), thank you for your patience (though for the life of me, I can’t work out how any one of those comments actually had any role to play in your lives).
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:08 pm
Can we get back to talking about cricket?
Why? It is well established that top to bottom we’re fucking pathetic. Did you have something to add to that Longknives?
We could of course, always speculate on how these tossers would have gone in the good old amateur days against the likes of Lillee & Thompson, or against a continuous attack from Holding, Marshall, Garner, Croft, as their predominantly amateur predecessors had to; or subsequently against Waqar and Wasim.
Yet in a fully professional era, we have the coach and captain bleating like bitches about “taking positives”, and “working weally weally hard”, or “weally hurting”. They do two things exactly as they are expected to; a hundred things they shouldn’t, and they take a take a positive from that? They fucked up and worked hard in the nets! So? Are we expected to give them credit for that? Pathetic and over-indulged children.
It will be interesting to see if their are any market force responses in the form of pressure on sponsorship money. After all, what successful commercial organisation would want to be associated with this failure? How would any commercial organisation have any confidence in the train-wreck that is NZ cricket administration. Why would you want to associate your brand with that crap? And now we have White and Buchanan embarking on a snipefest. What a fucking shambles.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:10 pm
RightNow
From the link you praised
The conclusion after they explain natural variability to you.
The funny bit at the bottom where they sum it all up
What’s the outlook?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Dotcom
Perhaps you should just fuck off back to the Bain thread as you said you would. Bleating like a bitch here in self-justification is a bit sad. But then hey, if you want to do sad, go for it.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Sounds like everyone other than me is doing all the bleating, tdm.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:19 pm
I was boasting about the ipredict results.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:35 pm
You Know if you Google your last quote dotty it comes up first on Google.
Vote:It could give you endless satisfaction if you sat there goggling the last thing you said.
If you do it long enough you could be the worlds expert on your self.
January 14th, 2013 at 7:36 pm
I should be safe over here for a few moments while the hypocrites Manolo and Davincimode are fighting it out on the Stead Thread, where they say I should fuck off back to. Hmmm. I think Manolo’s comment number was 2779, while TDM’s was 2781 and more. Don’t blame me for the comment count there. I’m here.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Thanks Griff. Comments about comments about comments really do make the world a better place. Fuck there are a lot of Comment-Commandos on Kiwiblog.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Is there a Doctor in the house?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Except there are no similarities. Thomas was paid $1 million – he was clearly innocent. David Bain won’t be given a brass razoo. Why would an innocent person lie? None of the Bain cultists have been able to explain why David has told lie after lie after lie.
If David wants compo, he can forget about it.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Could all the Bainiacs please fuck off to their own thread?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:48 pm
Aaahhh. Rodders, another Comments-Commando. You too have contributed to the Bain threads more than once, just to tell us to stop commenting. So why shouldn’t I visit here once, while your Executive Members are fouling up the dregs of the Bain thread. Oh silly me. This is a Members Only lounge. While you Executive Members can visit a Bain thread whenever you bleedingwell wish to.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:50 pm
Mikenmild. Another frequent visitor to the Bain threads, telling us we were not welcome to have our Bain threads. There is a distinct pattern emerging from the Executives.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Don’t look at me
I piss everyone of by reacting to every climate change denial post
That the bainites managed to flog it for so long means it has obvious interest for some
The goat thing was pretty fascinating
after all
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him…he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left” (vv. 31–33).
More on morality, the bible, sex and goats can be found here
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38%3A13-24&version=NIV
Still they dont allow stoning for that now filthy progressive liberals banned it.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Does anyone have a phone handy to call 111?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 7:55 pm Vote:
January 14th, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Anyway, I’ll pop out again now, and see if the Executive-Comments-Commandos have left the now nearly 3,000 comments post (thanks to Executive-Comments-Commandos), and whether it’s safe to return at long last. Sorry to intrude in your Executive-Lounge.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:00 pm
‘Phone rings, woman answers.
Vote:Pervert with heavy breathing says, ‘I bet you have a tight arse, with no hair.’
Woman replies ‘Yes, he’s watching the rugby. Who shall I say is calling?’
January 14th, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Please come back Dotcom, we need your Mensa-level intelligence here…
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Well, he did say he was leaving (again) so I expect your prayers will be answered milky.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Kea, what are you suggesting? That we should do no research into climate change and what may or may not cause it? That we should decide now never to try and do anything about any possible adverse effects?
Man’s attempts at mitigating against natural effects have sometimes worked. I wear clothes so I don’t get too sunburnt or cold. I have a roof on my house. I have drainage in my section. They seem to be reasonably successful most of the time.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Dotcom enjoys coming here to have his arse kicked.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Griff, “If oceanic cycles do what the Met Office and others expect”
Stop, you’re making my sides hurt. The UKMO? Remember their ‘mild winter’ of 2010 and the disruption to flights because the airports were snowed in?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Or more succinctly from your selection griff: “If”
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Pete George, I am suggesting we do not run off half cocked. There is plenty of research going on and aside from the predictable line taken by special interest groups like the IPCC, some of it is real science.
There is no evidence of anything out of order with our climate and trying to make news out of ordinary weather events does not fool the better informed. This whole AGW movement is not motivated by concern for the climate. What is behind it is a desire to end capitalism and general environmental concerns. It is more about politics than environment. Stop channeling Griff and look at the human factors in all this debate. It is there you will find the truth.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:28 pm
nasska
The jokes have slowed to a trickle. Is it the heat?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:37 pm
Can some of the Experts please tell me and others more about this ‘Climate Change’?
When did the Climate not change? think about it first
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Five cannibals get appointed as programmers in an IT company.
During the welcoming ceremony the boss says: “You’re all part of our team now. You can earn good money here, and you can go to the company canteen for something to eat. So don’t trouble the other employees”.
The cannibals promise not to trouble the other employees.
Four weeks later the boss returns and says: “You’re all working very hard and I’m very satisfied with all of you. However one of our cleaners has disappeared. Do any of you know what happened to her?”
The cannibals disavow all knowledge of the missing cleaner.
Vote:After the boss has left, the leader of the cannibals says to the others:
“Which of you idiots ate the cleaner?”. A hand raises hesitantly, to
which the leader of the cannibals says: “You fool! For four weeks
we’ve been eating Team Leaders, Managers, and Project Managers so no-one would notice anything, and then you have to go and eat the cleaner!”
January 14th, 2013 at 8:48 pm
Readily convertible to a public service and parliamentary context (substitute “policy analysts” for team leaders etc).
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:52 pm
“There is no evidence of anything out of order with our climate”
That is not half cocked, it is cockless.
These days I usually avoid climate ‘debates’ here because they’re futile, they have been futile since well before Griff added hisn two bobs worth. Your mindless certainty and petty attacks on anyone you disagree with are the height of that futility. Nothing will be changed by what is said here.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:53 pm
Is that it arse-licker, Is that comment worth even posting: You call it an insult? Poor Rodders. 98, 99, change hands, Rodders.
Excuse me, multitasking at the moment. Urgently needed.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Incidentally, Rodders too made his unwelcome and stupid visits to the Bain threads. Got his arse licked there. And slunk back into the woodwork.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Safety helmets for pedestrians soon? Safety helmets for leaving your house? Safety helmets when you enter a Shopping Mall?
Vote:ffs
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10859088&ref=rss
January 14th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
“Nothing will be changed by what is said here.” I’m inclined to agree, and not just about climate topics.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Mikenmild, come back indeed. You have a high opinion of your Executive Lounge. I have higher callings. Today you called me (Flipper), I exercised right of reply. And ever since, you have insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted.
Why on Earth would I want to be here unless it was to exercise right of reply?. This Executive Lounge of yours, it is a fools’ Hell on Earth.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other’s work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted – and relied upon.
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).
Several subsequent studies confirm that “…the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.
We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Max Keiser Report
Vote:Senator Ron Paul has introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2012 ( HR459) to the upset of Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. In August, the House of Representatives passed 327 – 98 on a vote which exceeded the necessary 2/3rd majority.
Paul, who is pushing for “transparency” in America’s relationship with the Fed, said that Americans are “sick and tired of what happened in the bailout and where the wealthy got bailed out and the poor lost their jobs and they lost their homes.”
The Audit legislation will direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is an independent congressional agency, to oversee a full review of the Fed’s monetary policy while conducting an audit of them and their decisions will be turned over to the Federal Open Market Committee.
In July, the first audit of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) was published by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). According to Senator Bernie Sanders : “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world. This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”
January 14th, 2013 at 9:03 pm
If I had a time machine, where would I go?
Versailles 1919 to witness the end of World War One?
Egypt 2700BC to see the Pyramids being constructed?
200 million years ago to behold the Jurassic age of dinosaurs?
Would I fuck.
I’m going back to when I lost my virginity to do the bitch properly.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:05 pm
The davincimode just made one of those unwelcome visits into the Bain thread again, to keep on making a nuisance of himself for everyone on the entirety of Kiwiblog.
No wonder the comment count just went over 2,800, with all these Comment-Commandos not being able to control their emotions. What were you saying about my INVITED visits here, divinci? You invited YOURSELF onto the Bain thread just to bring trouble.
Now could you stop being so bloody childish. You too Rodders, you infant.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:06 pm
yeah nasska!
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:07 pm
Pete George, have a look at the language used by the alarmists, if you want to see petty attacks. You will see that most of the personal attacks come from the alarmist camp.
Personally my only interest in this is the truth. If you want to support socialism, social justice, the environment, then great, just do it. Do not try and bring those aims about through this AGW bullshit.
As someone who really does care about the environment, I join the founder of Greenpeace and many others, in being appalled at how people with political goals have over run the environmental movement. When AGW is more widely exposed as a fraud, it will be so much harder to promote genuine environmental causes.
This disgusting charade will cause massive harm to both science and the genuine green movement. We can expect that to happen soon.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:12 pm
actually nasska I would go back just a little bit more
Vote:Its always the ones you missed that haunt you
January 14th, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Why didn’t you do better on your hostile score nasska?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Griff there is no consensus. There are a small group of scientists who appointed themselves as an authority on the issue. They are all paid, big money, to promote AGW.
I have shown you examples of very well qualified scientists who do not support the theory. These people can speak freely, because they are not in the employ of those who are paid by the AGW industry. If any body does not play the game, they get rid of them pronto, that is how they get “consensus”. They have to, because if the truth comes out, they are all discredited and unemployed.
And who wants employ thousands of discredited weathermen who have been caught committing fraud and telling lies ?
As I mentioned earlier, you freaks are doing huge damage to the long term public perception of environmental advocates. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:18 pm
Sob. Mommy, take away my demerits. Sob.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:22 pm
hear hear
Though I did a better job on her sister !
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:23 pm
Come on, Baby Fodders, with all the practice you’ve had, your insults are supposed to get better. What the hell was that. “Sob” indeed?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:24 pm
Viking2:
Yet another excellent, and blindingly obvious, idea that one must wonder why it hasn’t to at leasat one of the 99/120 geniuses we’ve had representing us since goodness knows when.
nasska:
You’re optimistically assuming that you’ve since improved your performance. Given that any statement of fact made on KB is quickly descended upon by the hordes demanding empirical proof, I’d be wary of making such claims, or before you know it you’ll have to be switching on the webcam while the blogatariat ready their scorecards…
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:28 pm
I thought that I’d pretty much red lined the poll on that subject DaVinci.
Rex……warning noted!
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:34 pm
your conspicwhackys showing again kea
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:42 pm
Griff, tell us a bed time story. You know our favourite. The one about BIG OIL & the mysterious “CARBON INDUSTRY” who are conducting an “experiment” on the workers of the world and poisoning Gaia. Tell us how the evil minions have turned independent scientists into mindless slaves and how the brave (and very very well paid) scientists of the IPCC are fighting to save the workers of the world and bring a green revolution and social and climate justice to all.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:46 pm
How’s your sockpuppet, frankdb?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Rodders, are you sure this wasn’t the term for which you’re searching?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:57 pm
Rex, I can’t get that link to work.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 9:58 pm
Kea (1,591) Says:
January 14th, 2013 at 9:42 pm
———————-
You’re not a supporter of ToP theory then?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Although polls in France show a “majority” of 52% in favour of gay marriage, a huge crowd of 340,000 has just gathered at the Eiffel Tower to protest gay marriage. So proud. At last people are standing up for what they believe.
Bliimin socialists ey? Still glad to see the ordinary person stand up for what is right.
The link also has video –
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/13/hundreds-of-thousands-converge-on-eiffel-tower-to-protest-gay-marriage-a-change-in-civilization-that-we-dont-want/
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Again kea you miss the point
Vote:I am not a socialist
In many respects I am politically far right as many who follow kb know
Again you focus on the politics to define the debate
AGW is a scientific debate
The debate on what we do about it is politics
Among scientists there is little doubt except around minor details
only in the nutty world of the denial blogs is there a consensus its not happening
If you read them and telly up the different lines of bullshit you soon see that they continuously contradict their own story’s
Science does not accommodate such contradictions
All the information for the science of AGW is on the public record anyone can have a paper published as long as it reaches the standard of science for accuracy and proof
That nutters dont get published just shows they have no scientific proof for their rubbish
If scientists talk rubbish they dont get jobs or research grants. That is why the nutters become marginalized in the scientific community
January 14th, 2013 at 10:07 pm
“If scientists talk rubbish they dont get jobs or research grants.”
Gergis.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:13 pm
There are those that would argue the opposite. It is those prepared to talk rubbish, and provide industry with what it wants, or needs, to increase profit margins, that get the jobs and research grants. And more so, an argument that unless potential scholars are prepared to ‘talk the rubbish’ they are limited in becoming ‘Scientists’.
(not my argument, but one suggested to me)
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:22 pm
Griff, I know you are not a socialist, but most of the AGW movement are. They influence your thinking.
“All the information for the science of AGW is on the public record”
Yes and many scientists question the conclusion that is AGW.
If everyone thought like you, there would be no scientific advancement at all, and for that matter, no AGW theory. The people who advance scientific knowledge are the ones who question established science. If you know any thing of the history of science, you would know that already. I think you do know that, but do not apply it to AGW, because your position is so entrenched.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Gergis.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gergis
A massive stick of butter used to fight off dangerous koala bears.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:25 pm
DAMN THIS LACK OF EDIT!! Gahhhh!!!
Sorry, I’m now displaying the mildest form of the symptom which I suggested may assist Rodders in his diagnosis earlier.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:29 pm
Thanks for the link, Rex.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:30 pm
We know there is no edit Rex, and a hindered other Executive Loungers We don’t have to be reminded EVERY time someone makes a typo. We already know there is no edit function. Can we drop the “damn the edit” good people. And when you make a typo, pretend there never was an edit, and fix your typo. It should not be difficult for people with the cumulative talents of the Executive Loungers.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:32 pm
But the prioritising of research in certain levels is not decided by the most urgent or harmful, but rather, by the group that is best able to provide the resources for scientific investigation and advancement, and therefore, knowledge is provided about that particular phenomena, when others, due to lack of attention, are ignored. As such, society becomes informed about an issue that has been decided by human interests, not just scientific but also economical and political. Further action is dictated by whichever interest groups associate themselves with the knowledge, including political and economical, who proceed to disperse information depending on their particular agenda. The particular climate change phenomena, is therefore socially created, however, the actual occurrence, e.g. dying shell fish exists independently of this social creation.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:36 pm
Example: hindered other = hundred other
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:36 pm
Now how hard was that?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:38 pm
better still, don’t drink and post!
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:39 pm
Kea you are just in denial
I have read every climate nutter blog
The logic inconsistency become more obvious the more you know
When I read a blog and identify some thing I know is rubbish I discount the whole blogs content as unreliable
if the climate e mails contained any thing to discredit the scientist involved
It would have been exposed by one of the eight reports into it
the odds are too high that all eight reviews could find no fault especially when they are from respected organizations
The denial blogs still keep posting the emails as proof of wrong doing Go to WUWT its on the home page
Any blog that does so is not honest or reliable for unbiased information
Vote:hence the denial network is not a reliable source of information
January 14th, 2013 at 10:42 pm
“Gergis.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gergis
A massive stick of butter used to fight off dangerous koala bears.”
I liked “takin a big ripper on a couch while eating macaroni and cheese”
ROFL! Sweet, sweet karma.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:43 pm
“When I read a blog and identify some thing I know is rubbish I discount the whole blogs content as unreliable”
you’d better stop posting all that shit from SS then don’t you think?
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:49 pm
And…. the patient provides a textbook example of the symptom.
“I find mention of the lack of editing tiresome but people won’t stop! Wah! I want the entire world to conform to my own view of how it ought to be, even an insignificant blog! Wah!”
Alas it seems there is no cure (though I’m betting the photograph is eerily accurate).
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:52 pm
Why right now
Vote:they reach my level of proof
you will not find unlinked unlabeled graphs or unlinked claims
the debate is transparently moderated in respect to science
they admit mistakes
they welcome scientific input from any source
they dont keep posting known rubbish as fact
They dont run sock puppets to confuse the argument
they dont take money from the carbon industry and lie about it
January 14th, 2013 at 10:53 pm
Rex
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 10:56 pm
The thing is griff, I can post a number of rebuttals to things SS have got wrong, but by your rules you can’t read them.
Vote:It’s your own personal echo chamber.
January 14th, 2013 at 11:00 pm
But hey, if you’re all good informing yourself from the blog of an evangelical Christian…
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 11:06 pm
So, since we can safely say religion is no basis for discounting someone (eh griff?) then let’s revisit the Petition Project:
“The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.”
“31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
Vote:including 9,029 with PhDs”
http://www.petitionproject.org/
January 14th, 2013 at 11:16 pm
Griff, I see the problem. You have been reading “nutter” sites and not listening to the real scientists who disagree with AGW theory.
Not many dispute climate change is real. Most acknowledge mans influence on climate. The point of difference is largely around the degree that mans activities influence climate.
It is really that simple and does not require you to be a “nutter” to understand the science they present.
There is no such thing as a “Carbon Industry”. There is however a AGW industry and it is big dollars. Who funds the IPCC and all the “scientists” you quote Griff?
Do they have any other way of supporting themselves or paying the mortgage ?
I know oil and coal companies do, because they sell a product the world can not get enough of. The biggest markets in the world all reject climate change and they have a huge market in China and India. The fossil fuel suppliers have not concerns about your silly theory, as the world needs their product. The world does not need unreliable weathermen who tell fibs for money.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 11:44 pm
Must be off self-medicating for the cognitive dissonance again. Gonna have to be a big joint to get over John Cook being a “fundie nutter”. That’s shot down 50% of his arguments right there.
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Come back spliff! It doesn’t make any difference to me that Cook is a happy-clapper!
Vote:January 14th, 2013 at 11:51 pm
Kea. these must be the ‘real’ scientists that gwiff the GRIEF is so fond of:
Canada – Dr. Fred Michel, (Paleoclimatologist) director of the Institute of Environmental Science and Associate Professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Canada.
“Climate hysteria has been known to be a sham all along.”
“As someone who has worked in the arctic on topics such as permafrost, groundwater, and Quaternary glacial history, it has always been quite clear that the climate is constantly changing and that natural processes are able to produce very large changes over very short time periods.”
[We need] “to return our focus to the important issues that need to be addressed, which includes being aware of the effects of a changing climate whether it be warmer or colder.”
USA – Dr. Will Happer (Physicist), Princeton and noted energy expert sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming “mistaken”
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect”, said Happer. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.”
Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. “The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Dr Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy (1991). In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn’t support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused, then, Vice President, Al Gore to fire him.
“I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy but I did not need the job that badly”.
“Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer concluded.
Dr Happer’s latest remarks were made as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list
South Africa – Dr. Philip Lloyd, UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, and author of more than 150 refereed publications.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
Canada – Dr Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist) – Professor of Geology – Carlton University
“Many things we thought we knew about the climate system just a few years ago are now proving to be uncertain or quite mistaken.”
“Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleo-productivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others [like Dr Shaviv] began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate.”
Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics [realists].
“There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.”
Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: “on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.”
Dr Patterson also comments: “When the IPCC report was being written, specialists in the field knew there was good evidence this natural amplification of the direct heating effect of the sun could explain recent warming. However, the IPCC left the idea aside under the label “Very Low Scientific Understanding,” partly because of the short length of time for which good data existed. Even though the solar-cosmic ray climate link appeared to many experts to be more meaningful than the CO2 climate connection, skeptics of the cosmic ray theory have argued we are unable to differentiate between the impact of CO2 and solar activity when the only data we have was during a period when both were increasing in unison. Thanks to Veizer and Shaviv, the missing data now has been provided.
Norway – Dr Tom Segalstad (Geologist & Geochemist) UN-PCC Expert Reviewer , a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC:
“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Japan – Dr Kiminori Itoh (Environmental Physical Chemist) Yokohama National University UN-IPCC expert reviewer
“Man-made warming is the worst scientific scandal in history.”
“When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
UK – Dr. Wilson Flood (Chemist), of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a chemistry education consultant, wrote that it is an “unproven hypothesis that rising greenhouse gas levels are largely responsible for climate change” in a June 27, 2007 letter to the Scotsman newspaper.
“….Further Met Office data also shows that global temperatures have actually fallen slightly in the last decade and have shown no statistically significant rise since 1990. Just to cap it all, NASA studies show that atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas methane are falling, not rising. All of the above are easily verifiable and fly in the face of the conventional wisdom. But, hey, we shouldn’t let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of what politicians believe, should we?”
Flood wrote In the May 2006 edition of Education in Chemistry, explaining:
“Of all the scientific disciplines, chemistry equips us best to grasp the essentials of the global warming debate. After all global warming comes down to the absorption of infrared radiation by organic molecules, coupled with the mole concept which allows us to convert tonnes of fossil fuels into tonnes of carbon dioxide.” Flood continued, “Those claiming that the effects of global warming from additional greenhouse gases can already be detected, I believe, are deluding themselves. It would take 5.5Wm-2 to produce a rise of 1K and an 11K rise (sometimes claimed) would need a massive 55W of additional energy for every square metre of the Earth’s surface. There simply is not that amount of energy available still to be absorbed from the Earth’s spectrum, most of which is largely saturated anyway owing to absorption by carbon dioxide and water vapour.” Flood said, “Those who promote apocalyptic global warming claim that the sensitivity is much higher than 0.18K, some claiming 0.75K and even 1.5K.6 These claims are mainly based on a postulated magnifying effect of water vapour but, from a consideration of infrared absorption spectroscopy in relation to the spectrum emitted by a body at 288K, it is not clear how such large values can be achieved.” Flood concluded by noting that the proponents of a climate catastrophe are out “to frighten the population.”
USA – Dr. Chris Walcek (Atmospheric Scientist), a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center who studies the relationship of pollutants within the atmosphere. Walcek is a sceptic of man-made global warming fears: “10,000 years ago we were sitting under 2,000 feet of ice right here. It looked like Antarctica right here. And then over a one to two thousand year period, we went into today’s climate and the cause of that change is not, well, nobody has a definitive theory about why that happened,” Walcek said according to a November 6, 2007 article In a separate May 5, 2007 interview, Walcek expanded on his climate skepticism and accused former Vice President Al Gore of having “exaggerated” part of his film. “A lot of the imagery like hurricanes and tornados. And as far as tornados go, there is no evidence at all that tornados are affected. And a recent committee of scientists concluded that there isn’t a strong correlation between climate change and hurricane intensity. A lot of people are saying we’re going to see more Katrina’s and there’s just not much evidence of that. We have had strong hurricanes throughout the last hundred years and we’re probably going to have strong hurricanes once in a while,” Walcek said. “We are over-due for an ice-age if you look at the geological records, we have had a period of not having a thousand feet of ice sitting here in Albany [New York].”
Dr Lubos Motl (Physicist) Formerly of Harvard University
“Recall that most of the 1.1 degree – about 0.7 degrees – has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,” Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007.
“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 — assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time — Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only – a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to.”.
“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children’s game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity.”
USA – Joel Schwartz MS (Planetary Science) from CIT, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) considered that the work by Stephen Schwartz overturned the UN IPCC ‘consensus’ in one fell swoop:”
“New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes
The study’s “result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming,” AEI’s Schwartz explained.
“In other words, there’s hardly any additional warming ‘in the pipeline’ from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth’s average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing,” he added.
“Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific ‘consensus’, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?” AEI’s Schwartz concluded.
Dr. Bruce West , U.S Army Chief Scientist dissented from climate fears in 2008. Dr West faulted the UN IPCC for having: “concluded that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible.” West argued argues many global warming researchers have not adequate modeled the Sun’s impact, according to a June 3, 2008 article. West believes the UN and others have “significantly over-estimated” the “anthropogenic contribution to global warming.” Dr West along with:
Nicola Scafetta of Duke University Physics Department published a March 2008 analysis showing the sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature
USA – Dr John Christy – Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (also Alabama State Climatologist) UN IPCC Lead Author “Public discussion about ‘carbon policy’ or ‘reducing greenhouse gases’ centres around the need to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour.” “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.” “I don’t see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as ‘plant food.’” “Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author) The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know” (from the Latin sciere, to know).” “The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: ‘We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans.’ We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don’t have thermometers marked with ‘this much is human-caused’ and ‘this much is natural”. So, I would have written this conclusion as “Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change.”
USA – Dr. Paul Berenson (Physicist), M.I.T-educated, was the executive secretary of the Defense Science Board for the U.S. Department of Defense, the Scientific Advisor to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and Scientific Advisor to the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. “Water vapor (H2O) is the primary greenhouse gas, contributing roughly 80 % of the greenhouse effect. Without the warming effect of the greenhouse gases, the Earth would be roughly 10 degrees cooler, and probably uninhabitable by humans. It has been estimated that the warming effect of CO2 is roughly one thousandth that of water vapor,” he added. “The analytical models used to predict higher atmospheric CO2 content and temperature have not been validated, and do not predict the measured values from the last 200 years; e.g., the cooling of roughly 1 degree C from about 1940 to 1975. Thus they are not valid and should not be used. They are not valid because they do not include major effects on the climate such as clouds, rain, electric currents, cosmic rays, sun spots, etc.”
USA – Dr Larry Vardiman (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Man-made carbon dioxide is generally thought to produce global warming. However, in a recent article entitled “Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming?” I presented several major reasons why carbon dioxide is probably not the primary cause. But if carbon dioxide is not the cause, then what is? Evidence is accumulating that cosmic rays associated with fluctuations in the sun’s electromagnetic field may be what drives global warming. A new theory called cosmoclimatology that proposes a natural mechanism for climate fluctuations has been developed by Henrik Svensmark, Head of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center. New Zealand -
NZ – Dr Willem de Lange is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Waikato, specialising in coastal oceanography and a UN IPCC expert reviewer and chapter co-author wrote on 23 May 2009: “I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis [of] runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.” “I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.” “The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.” “The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.”
Netherlands – Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm (Economist), UN IPCC expert reviewer, global warming author, and economist, a lecturer at the Netherlands Defense Academy, started out as a man-made global warming believer but later switched his view after conducting climate research. “I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics ….. After that, I changed my mind.” “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise’.”
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, UN IPCC expert reviewer, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas. “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the scientific literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false, they did not correlate with recorded human history.” “Depending on the period in earth’s history that is chosen, the climate will either be warming or cooling. Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points.”
Australia – Dr. Aynsley Kellow, UN IPCC Contributing Author, referee for the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, former professor at the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University. “They [IPCC] really do emphasize the bad news. They’re looking for bad news in all of this.” “The IPCC is assuming rates of economic growth that dwarf the nineteenth-century success of the USA, the twentieth century in Japan and so on. The USA experienced, I think, a nine fold increase in GDP per capita; these are making assumptions about 30-fold increases. So you can question their credibility. But if you do that, you’re questioning the emissions scenarios that are driving the climate models.” “I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: There is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.” “The scientists are in there but it is, after all, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientists are there at the nomination of governments.” Canada – Dr Tad Murty (Oceanographer) adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “Global warming is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole “
Dr. John T. Everett, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer, led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones. a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans, received an award while at NOAA for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries” “It is time for a reality check: warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing, The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change.” “I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming, than the next ice age that will bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated.” “For most life in the oceans, warming means faster growth, reduced energy requirements to stay warm, lower winter mortalities, and wider ranges of distribution,” he explained. “No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.”
USA – Dr Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley – NOT A SCEPTIC – gives his considered views on ‘The Hockey Stick Curve:’ Published by M. Mann and colleagues in 1998 and 1999, the [hockey stick] plot showed that the climate of the Northern Hemisphere had been remarkably constant for 900 years until it suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago – right about the time that human use of fossil fuels began to push up levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The overall shape of the curve resembled a hockey stick laying on its back-a straight part with a sudden bend upwards near the end. The hockey stick was turned from a scientific plot into the most widely reproduced picture of the global warming discussion. The hockey stick figure appears five times in just the IPCC report summary volume alone.’ The version below comes from the influential 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “There was a minor scientific glitch. The hockey stick contradicted previous work that had concluded that there had been a “medieval warm period.” In fact, it disagreed with a plot published by the IPCC itself a decade earlier (in its 1990 report) that showed pronounced warm temperatures from the years 1000 to 1400. It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important. Then last month the situation became even more complex. S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick published a paper in Energy and Environment with a detailed critique of the original hockey stick work. They stated bluntly that the original Mann papers contained “collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects.” Moreover, when they corrected these errors, the medieval warm period came back-strongly. Mann, et al., disagreed. They immediately posted a reply on the Web, with their criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis. Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium. Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious. I talked about this [the Hockey Stick Curve] at length in my December 2003 article [preceding]. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier article was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue. But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken. Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape! That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? [Sceptics may say ‘contrived mathematics’]
Vote:January 15th, 2013 at 12:23 am
And just in case you missed this GRIEF, your flakey “scientific mates” at the UK Met Office are completely impartial about global warming, and delighted that things are not going to warm as fast as they thought. So to draw attention to the good news they waited to release it on the … quietest possible news-day of the year. Oh. But remembering that they are public servants, they had to settle for the second quietest, and release it on the day before Christmas instead.
These are the people who said the science was settled, and the deniers were wrong, except that it wasn’t and they weren’t.
Unfortunately for the Met boys, the skeptics noticed, and now, not only do they have to handle the heat of that partial reversal , now they also have to admit the cheap PR trick backfired — they were caught in a cowardly attempt to hide the news. Busted.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/ukmo-lowers-5-year-global-temperature-forecast-and-omits-the-second-5-years-of-the-decadal-forecast/
This has been picked up now by Daily Mail, GWPF, Delingpole, The National Post (Canada) and this weekend, The Australian.
Daily Mail
“To put it mildly, it is a matter of enormous public interest that the Met Office has revised its predictions of global warming, whispering that new data suggest there will be none for the next five years. After all, the projection implies that by 2017, despite a colossal increase in carbon emissions, there will have been no rise in the planet’s surface temperature for almost two decades. Why, then, did the Met Office choose to sneak out this intriguing information on Christmas Eve, knowing there would be no newspapers the next day?
The Australian
“Climate results validate sceptics” by Graham Lloyd,
“If the latest Met Office prediction is correct, and it accords far more closely with the observed data than previous predictions, then it will prove to be a lesson in humility,” said David Whitehouse (of the Global Warming Policy Foundation) .
“It will show that the previous predictions that were given so confidently as advice to the UK government and so unquestioningly accepted by the media, were wrong, and that the so-called sceptics who were derided for questioning them were actually on the right track.”
The National Post (Canada) compares it to the sea-change that hit economic theories in the 1970′s
“It’s like Keynesian economic models in the 1970s that kept predicting high inflation would bring down unemployment,” Prof. McKitrick said. “Eventually they were so far off reality that it was no longer a case of trying to fine tune bits that didn’t fit, economists had to admit the underlying theory was wrong and start over.”
Bjorn Lomborg talks of “humility”
“This does not mean that there is no man-made global warming,” said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish academic and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. “But it does mean that we perhaps should not be quite as scared as some people might have been from the mid ’70s to about 2000, when temperatures rose dramatically, because they were probably at least partially rising dramatically because of natural variation, just like they are now stalling because of natural variation.”
He called the revised prediction “a return to the humility that we probably should have had right from the start,” and a reminder that the climate is harder to predict than scientists once “naively” thought.[ The National Post]
Does that mean Lomborg won’t call the sceptics “deniers” now?
Just how flat is that graph?
The UK Met Office has revised its global temperature predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations using it. (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc) It now believes that global temperatures for the period 1950 t0 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average, with an error of +/- 0.15 deg C. This will be achieved if the global average temperature remains the same as it is now. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global temperatures above current levels, and for the 20 years to 2017. The average global temperature increase for the period 1950 – 2017 according to the UK Met office will therefore be just 0.12 deg C per Decade or 1.2 deg C per century with no indication that there is an increase in the warming rate.
Graham Lloyd again from The Australian
“For the sceptical, the Met Office’s near-term predictions are coming home to roost. In 2007, it predicted that by 2014 the global average temperature was expected to have risen by 0.3C compared with 2004, and that half of the years after 2009 were predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year in 1998.
“Given that we have data for three of the five years of that period, and all show no departure from a constant temperature when analysed statistically, this is a prediction that will probably be totally wrong,” Whitehouse said.
“In any case, it is completely at odds with the new forecast.”
The Met Office excuse: but we can do long term predictions
Responding to media reports, the Met Office said “small year-to-year fluctuations such as those we are seeing in the shorter five-year predictions are expected due to natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long-term warming.”
Sorry boys. It won’t wash. Of course, sceptics agree, natural variability could be countering the effect of CO2, but that’s not what you said in 2007 when you were calling them “deniers”. No one at the Met Office added the caveat that we might not have to build the sea-walls or wind farms for ten years, because temperatures might stay the same. No one at the Met Office said (publicly): the skeptics have a point, our models are as good as rune stones at Blackjack. Don’t panic yet!
Instead they said: “The science is settled”. “The models are accurate”. Which we now know wasn’t true. And that’s what matters about this episode, not the 0.02C, and not the failed predictions. What really hurts is that their PR has been so misleading. They can’t escape by acknowledging “genuine gaps in understanding” about “complex climate systems” — not when skeptics have been saying those exact things for two decades and the Met Office has just called them names.
Vote:January 15th, 2013 at 12:33 am
“It’s like Keynesian economic models in the 1970s that kept predicting high inflation would bring down unemployment,” Prof. McKitrick said. “Eventually they were so far off reality that it was no longer a case of trying to fine tune bits that didn’t fit, economists had to admit the underlying theory was wrong and start over.
Like the idea that tax cuts create the growth to balance government budgets without need for spending cuts?
Vote:January 15th, 2013 at 12:38 am
Like the idea that the tax money “lost in space” bailing out banks can be replaced by QE, except none of the bail out money goes to taxpayers or to support funding of services to taxpayers instead it also gets channelled through the financial sector, so the government sector remains starved of money while asset values (preserve of the 1%) are heavily subsidised – transfer of more wealth to those who have invested capital earning CG.
Vote:January 15th, 2013 at 1:11 am
none of the bail out money or none of the p
Vote:January 15th, 2013 at 1:13 am
… none of the bail out money or none of the QE money goes to taxpayers (such as paying off national debt) or to support funding of services to taxpayers …
Vote:January 15th, 2013 at 6:42 am
Some koha would’ve eased the Stone Agers “discomfort”: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8176771/Studio-plans-proceed-despite-iwi-opinion
Vote:January 15th, 2013 at 8:15 am
This is the standard of science writing you guys except
do the math and look very carefully at the dates
it just does not make mathematical sense
1950 t0 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average,
as the fifty’s were lower than the seventy’s this statement projects massive increases are forecast between 2000 and 2017
Vote:fucken rubbish for fuckwits who really can not even grasp basic math No warming from a post that says +0.43 between 20000 and 2017
January 15th, 2013 at 8:57 am
there has been a twist to the Tim Ball story. In April of last year, one of his op-eds in the Calgary Herald slamming the science of climate change raised the ire of Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge.
Johnson wrote a letter to the editor questioning Ball’s academic credentials and was quickly sued for defamation. Ball filed suit on September 1 against Johnson and four editors at the Herald for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.
In the statement of defence filed by the Herald on December 7, the paper noted that Ball “is a member of the Friends of Science, a group dedicated to discrediting mainstream scientific beliefs and theories regarding the contribution of human sourced greenhouse gases to global warming”, and that “the Friends of Science and the plaintiff are, at least in part, supported and funded by members of the oil and gas industry who have a vested interest in limiting the impact of the Kyoto Accord on their business.”
The Herald also stated that Ball “has published few articles in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals” and that he “has not conducted research regarding the relationship between climate and elements within the atmosphere”.
And here is how Herald editors characterized the man whose opinion pieces on climate change they had chosen to publish eight times in the past five years: “The plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
Strange. This was not how he was identified in his bylines. In an op-ed in April of last year, the Herald cited him as “a Victoria-based environmental consultant. He was the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years.”
Therein lies the crux of the matter. This is not about freedom of speech. No one is suggesting that a paper should not have the freedom to publish whatever it wants, as long as it is not violating any laws.
The question, instead, is one of properly identified sources—a foundation of good journalism.
Imagine if the next time Ball is cited in the popular press he is identified as “a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry” rather than as a scientist.
Vote: