General Debate 7 December 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment157

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (157)

Login to comment or vote

getstaffed

Why do we stand idly by and let batshit crazy things like this happen: EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger.

WASHINGTON–The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.

Such an “endangerment” decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.

The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.

Let me interpret a little further. Every time you breathe out you will be creating a Public Danger. Absolute madness. When Maurice Strong, the founder of the UN Environment Programme said this …

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

… perhaps classifying the very process of breathing as one of creating danger was what he imagined to get the [wrecking] ball rolling.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 7:34pm
Luc Hansen

getstaffed

getholdofSarah!

It’s the DEATH PANELS!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 7:45pm
Falafulu Fisi

Ms Hansen said…
It found that 100 per cent – every single one – agreed it is being fuelled by human activity.

That claim is akin to the consensus on the double-slit-experiment (see the youtube animation, I linked to above) from my previous message.

Have you watched the double-slit-experiment animation that I linked to above? The consensus (amongst physicists) is that objects (size is irrelevant) can be at 2 places at once? I recommend that you watch it. Physical reality is not decided/constructed by what humans think of it. It is objectively existed independent of us humans, and that’s a fact.

Ms Hansen said…

There is no debate among climate scientists. There are a few scientists who don’t conduct research into the climate who disagree, but going to them to find out how global warming works is a bit like going to a chiropodist and asking her to look at your ears.

Irrelevant argument. Many great Nobel Laureate theoretical physicists who produced/invented/developed ground-breaking theories were theorists and they themselves had never set foot in a laboratory, but their minds roamed around the universe, such as Einstein, Feynman, Heisenberg, etc,… These were great theorists who produced theories so those can guide experimentalists in their search for reality. Experimentalists need a theory to guide them instead of aimlessly & randomly looking for physical laws that describe the universe, which are quite well-hidden.

Do you believe that consensus or not? Does the nature of physical reality depend on consensus or it is supposed to be objectively independent of us (humans)?

Ms Hansen said…
It shows that the temperatures above 12,000 ft are warmer now than at anytime in the last 3500 years and the last 1000 years look uncannily like the Mann Hockey Stick. Just another nail in the coffin for the deniers.

Ms Hansen, did you know that Hockey Stick is a statistical test and not a physics model ? Do you know the difference or not?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 8:06pm
Viking2

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/are_we_feeling_warmer_yet.pdf

All the latest graphs and numbers analyzed without prejudice and alteration.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 8:26pm
paradigm

Falafulufisi, I think you need to be careful not to blur two distinct points:
-whether the current theory is desirable in that it may be applied universally
-whether the current theory may be legitimately used to extract useful information in a particular set of circumstances

A failure of the first point does not break climate change models, you need to fail on the second point in order to do that. Indeed were we that hung up on the need for universal applicability of laws, we’d have to bin quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity, as they are mutually exclusive. However we don’t and instead make useful predictions from both.

My example of the lack of need to apply QM to a car was perfectly valid and quite illustrative in this regard: QM reduces to CM (classical mechanics) in the large body limit, so predictions made by CM are still valid. Similarly the papers conceede that as we move away from absolute zero, the laws must reduce to those aready in application. Now it would be nice to know what the laws are in the low temperature limit, but given they reduce to the current set of laws over the temperature range we are interested in, then the issue does not affect the validity of climate change models, and you are being disingenuous if you are suggesting otherwise.

The only directly relevant question is if the laws (as currently applied) hold over the range of conditions they are applied to in climate change models. Complaining that they diverge from experiment outside of that does not disprove climate models. All it is an arguement for more basic research money. The findings of the models will remain valid unless you can ahow that the assumptions and relationships they employ do not hold in the domain they are employed over.

You have assumptions and that’s good, because that’s what physics is supposed to be, but you must modify the model (or its premises) if you have encountered a problem or if the model is too narrow in its domain of application.

If you have any actual objections to the set of assumptions I employed on stefan boltzmann (essentially only that of local equilibrium) I suggest you actually state them, instead of implying they are wrong. The only substantive criticism you directly provided last time was that molecules can rotate, which I quickly showed not to be relevant.

I suggest that you dig a little bit more (hint, find the cited papers that are referenced at the end of those 2 papers that I linked to , from the other thread). Most of them are available online.

The onus is on you to directly provide information to back up your statements. Not merely say look in that pile of papers, something might be in there. If you can show an experiment where stefan boltzmann + frequency dependent emissivity does not adequately reproduce experimental results in the relevant temperature range then thats fine; however what you have shown so far in no way establishes this.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 8:27pm
Falafulu Fisi

Paradigm,

You keep reverting to approximating. I stated above, that the problem is not estimations or reduction of QM to CM or reduction of General Relativity to CM when object’s velocity is much much less than light speed. Phew! Do you follow or not? We have QM that gives the same predictions as Multi-verse theory? They both reduce of course to CM.

Which one is true? Doe the electron or particle in the double-slit-experiment pops in from another parallel universe to go thru the other hole and interfere behind the screen according to Multiverse or simply the single particle goes thru the 2 holes at once according to the standard QM? Just flip a coin. Which one? Multiverse or QM? They give the same predictions/observations although they portrayed different nature of reality? You know that they can’t be both represent the true nature of reality. Either one of them is bullshit or they’re both bullshit, in which case we should look for a new one or we should simply say what Feynman advocated is to just shutup and calculate, since those theories predictions just give what we expect to see? This is approximation and not searching for reality. There is a huge huge difference there. Now do you see of where I am coming from? We can use these theories without much care about what reality that underpins them , since they are useful and give reasonably good agreements between theory and observations. We can’t apply the same mentality to climate models, since there is a huge economic effect that will result in just doing that.

Paradigm said…
If you can show an experiment where stefan boltzmann + frequency dependent emissivity does not adequately reproduce experimental results in the relevant temperature range then thats fine

It is not about a specific range of frequencies, it should be the entire spectrum that should be applied to.

Have you read the followings? If you haven’t, then I’ll do the research for you?

– On the Earthly Origin of the Penzias-Wilson Microwave Background

– Global Warming & The Microwave Background

The temperature dip in the 1940s to 1960s cannot be explained by the current IPCC models. This indicates that our current understanding partly wrong or completely false.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:02pm
Hurf Durf

For fuck’s saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake.

Concerned mother of four Nicky Chapman petitioned for Government climate change policy at Parliament grounds today.

The Dunedin woman took up the cause after reading about “ocean acid” – “I want my kids to enjoy the ocean as I have,” she said.

“I thought this is something I can do. There wasn’t a formal petition going to the House.”

“It’s a goal setting exercise to acknowledged that the safe target is 350 parts per million of C02. Once we’ve got that goal we can work positively together.”

Ms Chapman, backed by Caritas (Catholic agency for justice, peace and development) and climate change action group Wellington 350, gained over 3000 signatures of support in just over three weeks.

“I see this petition as a way of holding hands across generations, across the globe,” she said.

Another “concerned” parent, just like Quiche Castle-Hughes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:11pm
Luc Hansen

The good news for the deniers who hang their hats on those non-climatologists, McIntyre and McKitrick (is that name a trick, or what?) at http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252, is that Mann et al have recalculated and reaffirmed the original hockey stick using a much wider range of proxy data.

Here’s the abstract:

Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.

Even better, a link is provided to criticism (of course) by M&M of the reconstruction AND it is replied to by MM et al!!

The bad news for the deniers is this: you need to think your way through all this, sorry.

PNAS is the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

So it seems we are stuck with the Hockey Stick.

PS Trademe now has a category for trading Carbon Credits. Look under “business farming & industry/carbon credits”.

Believe it or not. Look it up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:12pm
Hurf Durf

The hockey stick is bullshit.

I should get in on the carbon credits con. I’d live quite well.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:16pm
Viking2

Yea and some dumb arse Tauranga clown bought some carbon credits from Meridian and gave them to Key to use on his Copenhagen trip so it would be seen as carbon neutral.
What a crock of shit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:23pm
Luc Hansen

And if Kiwiblog visitors don’t believe the National Academy of Sciences of the United States how about the Royal Society of the United Kingdom:

Introduction:

Climate science statement

Published Date: 24 November 2009

The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:33pm
Luc Hansen

Hurf, email Michael Mann. Yes you can. This is where.

mann@psu.edu

Get back to me and let me know how that exchange goes.

OK?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:40pm
getstaffed

Good one Luc. The paper lists Michael E. Mann as the lead author. That guy belongs in prison, not on the named authors list of serious papers.

This paper, by way of association, will be like a professional millstone around the necks of the other authors. Sad.

But spin away my little struthio camelus. Just earlier today you were treating Mann like a persona non gratia. Flippity Flop!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:40pm
andrei

Yea and some dumb arse Tauranga clown bought some carbon credits from Meridian and gave them to Key to use on his Copenhagen trip so it would be seen as carbon neutral.

You know what they say about “a fool and his money”.

It Is fine by me if a fool wants to part with his money in the name of Gaia worship

Where I part company with all of this is I am not a fool and a strongly object to fools parting me from my money in the name of this cult.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:42pm
Hurf Durf

I certainly will. Here’s the draft:

Dear Mr Mann,

I find you to be a nauseating human being. I hope you hide yourself in the same way you did the decline.

Yours lovingly,
Hurf Durf
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:48pm
Falafulu Fisi

Ms Hansen,

Here is the algorithm that Mann et, al used in their hockey-stick temperature reconstruction.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

Can you find out which laws of physics that appear in the PCA algorithm?

Hint : Fifth form students can see that there is no laws of physics that appear in the PCA algorithm. None whatsoever.

Statistics is not physics.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 9:58pm
pentwig

And still no analytical comment from DPF on the most important political issue New Zealand has faced for decades.

Very very strange.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 10:05pm
Falafulu Fisi

Ms Hansen said…
The good news for the deniers who hang their hats on those non-climatologists, McIntyre and McKitrick

Congratulation Ms Hansen for having a short memory. Do you consume information that we throw around relating to the AGW debate or are you suffering from amnesia ?

I stated clearly to you last week, that your Lord Professor Gavin Schmidt got his PhD in mathematics and not physics nor climatology. Since you don’t seem to remember that from my comment last week, you just brought it out again here on this thread by claiming that McIntyre and McKitrick are non-climatologists themselves which is true, but so as your Lord Professor Gavin Schmidt (a non-climatologist himself). So, do you really have a point to make or you just like to make a piss take / idiotic comment?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 10:14pm
getstaffed

Falafulu Fisi – Don’t be too hard on poor old Dr Schmidt. After all his high Lord Rajendra Pachauri (Head of the IPCC) is a locomotive engineer!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 10:24pm
Luc Hansen

Fala

The point is that both Hansen and Schmidt are practising and respected climatologists.

M & M are an economist and a geologist and neither have the body of work or the recognition of Hansen and Schmidt.

I have tonight pointed to two prestigious bodies, the NAS of the USA and the Royal Society of the UK who would think that your views live up to your Kiwiblog handle.

Do me one favour: name one, just one, governmental science body of any country that rejects AGW. Just one. Highest points for that of a member of the OECD.

Meantime, to think that I would leave my daughter’s and my grandchildren fates to yours and getstaffed’s anonymous and ill-informed blogging here is just risible.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 10:35pm
Luc Hansen

pentwig

I think DPF is embarrassed by the level of the debate here.

He knows better.

And this actually is the most important issue the WORLD has ever faced, end of story.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 10:39pm
Hurf Durf

END OF DEBATE END OF STORY THIS IS SUPER DOOPER HELLA IMPORTANT

I’ll think you’ll find World War II a more important issue. At least the idea of German troops rampaging across Europe wasn’t overrated.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 10:42pm
Luc Hansen

Hurf

What’s your understanding of “The Decline”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 10:48pm
Luc Hansen

Hurf, what was basically a European civil war, with interlopers and opportunists eyeing up the main chance, is not particularly important in the wider scheme of things.

Sorry.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 10:50pm
Falafulu Fisi

Ms Hansen said…
I have tonight pointed to two prestigious bodies, the NAS of the USA and the Royal Society of the UK who would think that your views live up to your Kiwiblog handle.

Ms Hansen, here you go again. I pointed out to you earlier on, that the nature of physical reality, cannot be dictated to by human consensus. Reality dictates to us humans and not the other way round. Did you watch the double-slit-experiment youtube animation, which the consensus says, that in fact, material objects can traverse 2 different points in space at once! That means that you (or an object) can be here (some point A) and there (some point B) simultaneously? Do you take this consensus seriously? Or perhaps physical reality is laughing at the consensus of human scientists for making a fool of ourselves by thinking in that manner.

Prestigious bodies is irrelevant when it comes to formulating what true physical reality is about. We can’t dictate to reality of how it should behave. Reality dictates to us.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 10:50pm
getstaffed

Meantime, to think that I would leave my daughter’s and my grandchildren fates to yours and getstaffed’s anonymous and ill-informed blogging here is just risible.

And your anonymous and ill-informed blogging is somehow better informed? Pfffft.

Perhaps you could define “accepts AGW” first so that the notion of “rejects AGW” has some context. From where I sit there is absolutely no independently verified consensus of what AGW is, let alone an agreed definition of any supposed impact. No, there are simply swarms of factions and self-interest groups feasting on the ill-informed public’s disinterest, while being directed by a power hungry UN.

Let’s face it, politicians the world over share a disinterest in anything other than gaining more power. Their ‘concern’ for local constituents is uniformly transparent. But for some reason… all this should be swept aside because suddenly they ‘care’ for the global environment and our future’s… decades from now? Yeah right.

Science has died somewhere in this mess. Yet you want to gamble our futures on what amounts to promises from power-craving politicians. Crazy. Absolutely crazy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:01pm
Luc Hansen

Reality dictates to us.

At last, something we can agree on.

Cheers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:02pm
Luc Hansen

I’m waiting for Hurf to tell me his understanding of “The Decline”.

He seems to have chickened out.

Any other takers?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:03pm
Gooner

Luc said:

Such rapid changes have occurred previously in the paleo-history of the planet, accompanied by widespread extinctions of species.

True, and a classic reminder of the alarmism that confronts us.

At the end of the Triassic period, there was massive extinctions caused by a large climate event. That is quite accepted. The generally accepted theory is that a huge amount of supposedly heat-trapping carbon was released into the atmosphere.

So far so good.

But things are relevant. First, there were no humans, cars, coal stations, aeroplanes or farting cows during the Triassic period as it was ~200 million years ago. Second, the planet recovered. We are here now.

This is nature. Why are greenies so intent with fucking with nature?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:05pm
tom hunter

Hurf, what was basically a European civil war, with interlopers and opportunists eyeing up the main chance, is not particularly important in the wider scheme of things.

Wow. So science is not Luc’s weakest subject after all …………..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:07pm
Luc Hansen

getstaffed

IMHO, you are just deluded, if you really believe what you say above.

But let’s assume politicians are as you say. Then obviously the system is not working.

What’s your alternative?

A kinder, gentler totalitarianism?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:07pm
Hurf Durf

what was basically a European civil war, with interlopers and opportunists eyeing up the main chance, is not particularly important in the wider scheme of things.

Hahaha. Really, Puke? Really?

Get to the back of the class.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:11pm
getstaffed

There is a comprehansive analysis of the The Decline here. Also, you have not responded to my comment. Calling me deluded does not count as a response.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:11pm
andrei

Hurf, what was basically a European civil war, with interlopers and opportunists eyeing up the main chance, is not particularly important in the wider scheme of things.

Then how come the first shots in what was to become known as WW2 were fired by the Japanese (Asian) in Manchuria (Asian) September 1931 Luc?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:16pm
pentwig

Luc @ 10:39

That may will be case Luc, but DPF almost always comments on important issues.

The lack of comment on an issue that is certainly going to effect the next general election, and every NZ’er financially no matter what their status is bewildering.

DPF has made his stance known as has most people I know and even those I don’t.

DPF usually has an insider knowledge and POV. Most regard his comment with respect whether it is in conflict or not with their own.

He is just being uncharacteristically quiet on this one.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:17pm
Luc Hansen

Gooner

Easy. Because it’s not nature that is driving this change. It’s humans. Us. And now there are 6 billion of us. How many of “us” were there during the last great extinction?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:17pm
Luc Hansen

Andrei, right, so Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland to protect Britain and the US against the Asian localised conflict, right?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:21pm
Hurf Durf

Hastings? Yalta? Potsdam? Insignificant. Hopenhagen is where it’s at! Waaaaaah! Great extinctions!

And the left accuses the right of fearmongering.

On the bright side, we General Debaters can spend the power rationing hours telling our grandchildren how we got suckered by the AGW con.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:23pm
Luc Hansen

getstaffed

American Thinker is to thinking what Tiger’s Woody is to marital fidelity.

PS Which comment did you want a response to again?

Hurf, we won’t be rationing power. That’s a myth. We are blessed in NZ with water and wind. We just might need to persuade Anton Oliver to go live in France so we can build wind farms. They do nuclear, there, no sweat. Clean and green.

I’m looking forward to Key coming home from Copenhagen a changed man as regards climate change. I bet we no longer see a skeptic.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:37pm
Hurf Durf

I imagine all the scum in Shittenhagen will line his pockets. And yes, there will be power rationing. And food rationing. And fuel rationing. And everything rationing. Because under the glorious socialist utopia, everyone has to suffer to be equal.

Shittenhagen will fail. China, India and Russia will tell the guilt-ridden Westerners to fuck off – not that that will stop them giving BILLIONS of our money to countries “under threat” such as Tuvalu, the Maldives and Bangladesh.

I’m starting to think the Hondurans are onto a good idea.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2009 11:43pm
Sonny Blount

I’m looking forward to Key coming home from Copenhagen a changed man as regards climate change. I bet we no longer see a skeptic.

I think Luc that most of the world leaders are privately anti-cc, and are not so weak willed to be converted by a couple of key note speakers. What they put before their voters and why is a different matter though.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 12:09am
Haiku Dave

mr fletcher’s had
some great meltdowns on this blog
but this is the best!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 12:21am
getstaffed

What they put before their voters and why is a different matter though.

Sonny – Sadly what they put before their voters are carefully targeted bribes designed to secure another three years of absolute rule.

I didn’t vote Key in on the promise of increased taxation, nor on the prospect of him signing up to multi-billion dollar international treaties that impinge on our sovereignty.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 9:27am
RightNow

I feel ever so slightly better about the global scam, having recently cancelled my WWF monthly donation due to their endorsement of the Copenhagen global government tax. This follows from my cancellation last year of my donations to UNICEF, which I actually cancelled on the instigation of my wife after she read reports of UN employed pedophiles.
Now I find myself without undeserving charities to donate to, I’ll be giving Steve McIntyre and Climate Audit my financial support.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 9:37am
lofty

Can anyone tell me what has happened to Monkey with Typewriter?? He seems to have gooorrrnnn
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 9:40am
RightNow

Election 1960 (1961) James K Baxter

A democratic people have elected
King Log, King Stork, King Log, King Stork again.

Because I like a wide and silent pond
I voted Log. That party was defeated.

Edit: I think we have King Log for now, but he’s obviously being learning from Queen Stork

Ref: Aesop fable the Frogs who desired a king
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 9:49am
Don the Kiwi

WTF hapenned to today’s GD ??
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 11:13am
Manolo

“WTF hapenned to today’s GD?”

John Key, the man of steel, has been given responsibility, but he’s dithering about it.

Expect it on 2 January. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 11:19am
Colonel Masters

Fortunately he has time to pontificate on whether Hone should be charged for driving without a helmet.

Remind me, how is Key different from Klark again? She too was constitutionally unable to control herself from giving an opinion on anything and everything.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 11:47am
Manolo

“Remind me, how is Key different from Klark again?”

I never had any time for Labour or the overbearing, at times dictatorial Clark, but you have to admit there are substantial differences of style between these two.

Clark appeared decisive and firm; Key has the spine of an eel and grins most of the time.
Clark looked in control of her Cabinet; Key seems aloof and let his ministers get run amok, e.g., Nick Smith.
Clark spoke with a misguided confidence; Key mumbles and makes little sense in his statements.
Clark was a control freak; Key is laziness personified.

Both are equally bad for New Zealand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 12:06pm
Fletch

I have just seen some coverage of the opening of the Copenhagen summit on today’s news, and it’s blatant propaganda. At the opening, candidates were shown a short film of a helpless little girl as a huge wave came to wash her away, and she ends up clinging to a tree. It was pure Hollywood.

There was more pollution coming from the mouths of the opening speakers than there will ever be from changes to the climate caused by man. I see that Obama has also formally declared CO2 and 5 other gases dangerous to humans.

These people are freaking NUTS!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 12:13pm
getstaffed

Aside from the blatany hypocrisy outlined in the headline – Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges, there’s this gem of a paragraph:

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

Notwithstanding that the ‘science’ on which all this is based is about as convincing as Weatherston’s defence lawyer, our trough-dependent representatives are doing hard time in their 5-stars while planning to sign up for something that will cost taxpayers a fortune today, yet they will never be held to account.

It’s a complete rort. It’s a scam. And we’re suckers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 12:38pm
lofty

I bought a bird feeder. I hung

It on my back porch and filled

It with seed. What a beauty of

A bird feeder it was, as I filled it

Lovingly with seed. Within a

Week we had hundreds of birds

Taking advantage of the

Continuous flow of free and

Easily accessible food.

But then the birds started

Building nests in the boards

Of the patio, above the table,

And next to the barbecue.

Then came the poop. It was

Everywhere: on the patio tile,

The chairs, the table ..

Everywhere!

Then some of the birds

Turned mean. They would

Dive bomb me and try to

Peck me even though I had

Fed them out of my own

Pocket.

And others birds were

Boisterous and loud. They

Sat on the feeder and

Squawked and screamed at

All hours of the day and night

And demanded that I fill it

When it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn’t even

Sit on my own back porch

Anymore. So I took down the

Bird feeder and in three days

The birds were gone. I cleaned

Up their mess and took down

The many nests they had built

All over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like

It used to be …. Quiet, serene….

And no one demanding their

Rights to a free meal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 12:46pm
Luc Hansen

New Zealand’s so-called “clean and green” reputation is disappearing faster than the climate changer deniers credibility.

Hot on the heels of the incredibly cruel, and incredibly damaging to our image, factory farming proposal in the Mckenzie Basin is the news that no New Zealand newspaper joined in the other 56 newpapers throughout the world in a joint editorial encouraging the Copenhagen Conference to man up and make the necessary commitments to reduce emissions worldwide.

But the sight of the US delegate to the conference, however, emphatically slapping down the skeptics and the deniers was welcome and timely. As the world finally moves into full emissions reduction mode (after a nearly a decade of US denial under the ignorant cowboy caricature), this cabal will shrink into complete irrelevance.

However, if the leaders do not commit to a strong and genuine programme, I am picking that within two years the situation will be so obviously dire that it will become an international crime to build more coal-fired power stations, and later, a crime just to burn coal. Other fossil fuels will face a similar fate, to be used sparingly while we race around in sexy and quiet electric cars.

On a lighter note, it seems Tiger’s lovely wife has dumped him. At last, a women who is just not going to put on a brave but shamed face. A woman who stakes out a firm position that marriage vows are binding, not just a disposable indulgence. Go Elin!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 1:16pm
Hurf Durf

no New Zealand newspaper joined in the other 56 newpapers throughout the world in a joint editorial encouraging the Copenhagen Conference to man up and make the necessary commitments to reduce emissions worldwide.

Good.

the US delegate to the conference, however, emphatically slapping down the skeptics and the deniers was welcome and timely.

Hah. 2005-level cuts, same with China. When the con artists are being conned, hilarity ensues.

I am picking that within two years the situation will be so obviously dire that it will become an international crime to build more coal-fired power stations, and later, a crime just to burn coal.

The sky is falling in. Zzzzzzz. Because the Warmists have been portending to visions of apocalypse since 1998, I won’t put much faith in your crappy predictions. You’re usually wrong anyway.

sexy and quiet electric cars.

Fucking liar.

As Tariq Ali, famous Communist and Islamist, said: “Copenhagen may be the last chance to get communist ideals back onto the global stage.” That’s the only reason for this shitty conference.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 2:27pm
Sonny Blount

I am picking that within two years the situation will be so obviously dire that it will become an international crime to build more coal-fired power stations, and later, a crime just to burn coal.

You have joined Philu as the poster with the least respect on this board IMHO.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 6:50pm
philu

it’s gareth morgan vs wishart..on close-up..

phil(whoar.co.n)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2009 7:01pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Quick Google

2009 Kiwiblog Awards »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Reader mailbag: really long tunnels edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Climate Change: Criminal ecocide
No Right Turn
Is the state coming for churches?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
UN 'integrity'
Not PC
NIMBYism explained
Utopia
Daily review 16/04/2024
The Standard
Minor Blog Change Announcement
No Minister
Howling at the Moon
Point of Order
Word of the day
Hompaddock
The Working Group with Arena Williams, Max Harris and Damien Grant
The Daily Blog
THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Arguing about a moot point.
Kiwipolitico
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d