General Debate 22 January 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment55

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (55)

Login to comment or vote

Tauhei Notts

I’ve just been on a farm visit.
The sharemilker holidayed at Waihi Beach and was surprised to see urea spread on the sand dunes.
Hey, you are not allowed to spread that stuff alongside a waterway.
Apparently the ocean is not a waterway.
But the urea was spread in very hot dry conditions when the nitrogen within is released into the atmosphere and one is left with useless, by itself, ammonia. There seems to be a degree of naivety amongst Department of Conservation staff. We all remember the Cave Creek Construction Company.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:08pm
getstaffed

Ok slightly amusing [true] story. My 103yr old grandmother needed to renew her mobility parking tag for inside the car window. She doesn’t drive but those that ferry her around need it.

She was offered a 1 year pass for $30, or a 5 year pass for $45. She’s a very frugal pensioner – I have no idea how she lives on so little. She chose the 5 year pass. What a great outlook on life! Go granny!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:11pm
Viking2

Business News
Review aims to prevent low lake levels
Apparently the Labour apparatchiks that still remain in power at the electricity commission reckon they have a way of creating rain for the hydro lakes. Now I know they think they are God and were lucky enough to be rescued from fate two years in a row but making rain? All sounds a bit aboriginal to me.

Thursday, 22, Jan, 2009 10:24AM

Electricity companies could be penalised for having insufficient generation reserves as a report shows some of the lowest hydro lake inflows on record occurred last winter.

The Electricity Commission has released a review of the electricity market’s performance during 2008’s dry winter. It makes eight recommendations to try to improve future performance.

The report says that market participants know they can look to the Electricity Commission for help as the de facto supplier of last resort, and much of the cost will be met by others.

“There was also a risk that suppliers do not consider the cost of power cuts to users in their decision making, as they face no penalty for not supplying, which may increase the chance of an actual shortage occurring.”

Chairman David Caygill says it was positive that many large consumers had insured against the risk through hedging. He says there was also improved information sharing.

Mr Caygill says the industry has been invited to comment on the report.

The Commission is publishing (the report) without comment because we want to hear from stakeholders on the general direction of the recommendations before we formally consider the options suggested.

“A number of those options are significant and would require time for consultation and implementation. However, we expect we could implement some of the simpler improvements, if we adopt them, in time for winter 2009.

Mr Caygill says the Commission will then work through the recommendations to implement them.

The eight recommendations are:

* Ensure electricity companies face the costs of any forced cuts to consumers and are not able to shift these off to others, or implement compulsory dry year insurance.

* Review the operation and cost efficiency of Whirinaki, including moving it and changing its fuel, and/or transferring the plant out of the reserve energy scheme.

* As much as practicable, define and publish plans and triggers for emergency measures the Commission may take in a dry year.

* Formalise the improvements to information sharing demonstrated during winter 2008.

* Improve risk disclosure around suppliers demand expectations and their ability to supply.

* Improve certainty around the Commissions role when mentioned in terms of resource consent access to emergency generation capacity.

* Further clarify the roles of the Minister and the Commission relating to security of supply and confirming the Commissions independent functions.

* Prioritise initiatives that promote competition.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:24pm
AG

I know it is a leftie rag, and an integral part of the global left-wing takeover, but yet another nail in the coffin of the “there is no global warming” claim:

“Scientists have solved the enigma of the Antarctic apparently getting cooler, while the rest of the world heats up.

New research shows that while some parts of the frozen continent have been getting slightly colder over the last few decades, the average temperature across the continent has been rising for at least the last 50 years.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/21/global-warming-antarctica
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:25pm
iago

Apparently you can no longer use the word choice in America, http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2458 . Ridiculous example of political correctness.

[DPF: Good God, those people are nuts. Best not tell them about God and free choice]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:26pm
AG

Iago,

Heh. Nice.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:32pm
insider

viking

rather than a delusion of godlike powers, more likely it is a case of a headline writer not reading the story and coming up with something clever but entirely unsupported by the text.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:36pm
Michael M Wilson

http://www.homerescue.org.nz – Who says that the Teraty stands in the way of business opportunities. Check out this.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:37pm
MyNameIsJack

iago, not only is “choice” on the banned list in USA, criticising superstition is now a prosecutable offence in Holland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/dutch-islam-race-hatred-prosecution
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:43pm
MyNameIsJack

One sided generalisations are also illegal, looks like the end for kiwiblog. 🙂

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:51pm
CraigM

AG: you read your propoganda, I’ll read mine.

“At December’s U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”

The earth’s temperature peaked in 1998. It’s been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

Meanwhile, the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What’s more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.

Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan’s Institute of Science and Technology said this: “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other … every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”

etc…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 12:51pm
AG

CraigM,

Links please.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:01pm
Wycroft

Good to see Labour so quick to support the PM’s call for a freeze on MPs’ pay.

Hey, look at that, a flying pig.

Phil Goff’s favourite song: Silence is Golden
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:04pm
mike12

AG, was the soap used to brain-wash you environmentally friendly?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:08pm
baxter

AG………There is also evidence that the Global Climate has been warming not for 50 years but for 150 since the end of the last little ice age, as Craig states it is now accepted that the warming phase ended in 1998.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:20pm
AG

“AG………There is also evidence that the Global Climate has been warming not for 50 years but for 150 since the end of the last little ice age,”

Which also happens to correlate with the industrial revolution getting under way … but anyway. As for “the warming phase ended in 1998”, bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:27pm
grumpyoldhori

Key saying that he will bail out business with taxpayers money if needed.
Sorry chaps, but if you run a small business you will get what you have had in the past, bugger all.
With the exception of farmers of course, those born to the purple should not have to put up with hard times.
Money gamblers who get it wrong should be sweet, after all they are owned by the Aussies , so we owe them.
Banks will be more than okay, hell hardly seems fair that well paid banking types should go without a bonus because they made a few foolish loans.
Of course if the Nat government is handing taxpayers loot over to banks, the taxpayers should end up with that amount of equity, but we seem to have different rules where foreign owned trading banks are concerned.
Who said charity stays at home ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:43pm
side show bob

Don’t bother GraigM, until icicle’s begin to hang off AG’s dick he will remain in a blind adoring zombie state to his AGW God. And fancy linking to the Guardian, the UK’s bastion of articles to read will wearing a tinfoil hat.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:46pm
freethinker

Just had to post this from the NBR comments section – sums many things up quite nicely

“he Iraq war blunder was a direct result of the procrastination of that mindless, waste of money organisation, called ‘the United Nations’; repository of failed politicians and unemployable but highly qualified?-psuedo academics.
while this auguste body dithered, Sadam moved all the evidence to Jordan, Syria and Iran. Sattelite inteligence photograhed the transfers taking place.
Nor can Bush be blamed for the financial crisis, this is the direct result of mismanagement by so called Financial Investment Managers
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:47pm
LUCY

Freethinker – Yep!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:50pm
grumpyoldhori

freethinker, are you a immigrant or posting from outside NZ ?
So do you believe dubya is the greatest, godliest boss the US has had ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:52pm
LUCY

Have you read that the Kindy Teachers want to be exempt from the 90 day employment law? I dont think so!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 1:53pm
freethinker

Viking 2

Visited Manopouri hydro station on holiday and was told the original proposed lake level was 30 metres more than the Greenies would tolerate but given the exceptional circumstances even raising the level a couple of metres in times of high inflows requiring water to be spilled would surely be a sensible insurance. If the greenies object perhaps they will volunteer to be the first to have their power cut off in the event of a shortge?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 2:17pm
Murray

Because being in charge of other peoples kids is less important than burger flipping????

WTF!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 2:18pm
AG

SSB:

“Don’t bother GraigM, until icicle’s begin to hang off AG’s dick he will remain in a blind adoring zombie state to his AGW God. And fancy linking to the Guardian, the UK’s bastion of articles to read will wearing a tinfoil hat.”

Still waiting for the links to back up CraigM’s claims … or is evidence not important to you when thinking about things? As for trashing the Guardian, you simply prove my original point – argumentum ad source is the last refuge of a losing position.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 2:34pm
getstaffed

.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 2:53pm
joeAverage

Mr Farrar, why not suspend your demerit system for a month to see what happens, im sure we could act like adults for a month and hell why not give it a go??? new govt, new president but still the same old posters 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 2:55pm
getstaffed

AG, agree it’s better when posters provide links. 30secs on Google is a useful substitute.

“At December’s U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”

.. and..

Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan’s Institute of Science and Technology said this: “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other … every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 2:57pm
AG

Thanks, getstaffed.

Couple of points immediately leap out. It isn’t 650 of the “world’s top climatologists” speaking out. It’s 650 “scientists”, ranging from (yes) some climate scientists to “a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering at Auckland” and “head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.” Also, the fact they are “expressing doubts” about the UN IPCC report may range from outright denial of AGW to doubts about the extent of change predicted by that report … to lump it all together and say “all these scientists deny AGW” is too simplistic.

Furthermore, Dr David Gee is NOT a climatologist. His own CV says “Expertise: Geologist specializing in Tectonics (structure, stratigraphy, etc.), mainly of Palaeozoic mountain belts of Eurasia. Previous work with SGU on economic geology.” And Dr Kunihiko’s expertise is as “one of the world’s leading authorities on both uranium enrichment and recycling.” So at the least, CraigM’s choice of sources, and his presentation of them, is misleading.

As for the deeper point … the existence of some dissenting voices on AGW proves it is a lie … this is simply a fudge. What matters is where and how that dissent is expressed. If it is in the form of peer reviewed papers that are published in reputable journals, then it matters. If not, it doesn’t have scientific credibility. That’s how science works.

Put it this way – a Professor of Theoretical Physics puts out a press release saying that Darwinian evolution is a fraud, and that he is not convinced by it. This then is good evidence that God created man in his own image, the day after creating all other living creatures? If not, why not? Discuss.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 3:23pm
CraigM

Been in meetings all afternoon.

I don’t see my eartlier comment being misleading, they are the other side of the arguement. Example: a scientist pulls an ice core out of the ground and says that for the last 400,000 years, high levels of Co2 follow earths cooling, not pre-empts it, then that is reasonable doubt right there. He has the proof. Peer reviewed and agreed on by (some of) his colleagues. Accept it or don’t.

“…the existence of some dissenting voices on AGW proves it is a lie..”

Not true. The absence of scientific proof makes it a lie. As I said AG, it is a matter of which group of scientists you want to believe. Using evolution as a comparison (a poor one IMHO) where the inventor denied his ‘science’ later in his life,is disengenious. Lack of evidence makes evolution poor science but it does not make creationism good science as it too is scientifically unproven. Creationism is about faith and those who believe do so knowing that science has nothing to do with their choice.

I happen to believe that the honourable gentleman from Japan is correct. There are too many climatologists on the gravy train who won’t tell the truth…………yet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 4:48pm
AG

“I don’t see my eartlier comment being misleading,”

You at best misrepresented, at worst outright lied, about the status of the sources you were relying on. I showed how you did that. I stand by my claim that you were “misleading”.

“As I said AG, it is a matter of which group of scientists you want to believe.”

No. You can’t have “I’ll believe my scientists, you believe yours.” Science as a discipline follows procedures that test the evidence for particular hypothesis – in particular, through peer review and publication. The vast, vast majority of such publications support AGW. This might challenge your world view, and you might not like to believe it. But if you ignore it, you aren’t following the science. You’re deciding what you’d like to be true, then looking for a prop for it ex post facto. Hence claims like “there are too many climatologists on the gravy train who won’t tell the truth…………yet.” You seek to explain the near-consensus that one would expect to see if the evidence is strong through an appeal to something beyonf the scientific method. And let me ask you – exactly who is benefiting from this great AGW conspiracy, and why are they so powerful that the entire financial resources of the worlds extractive industries lies prostrate before their march to power.

Finally, “Lack of evidence makes evolution poor science” … this is a joke, right? Rabbits in the Permian, anyone?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 5:25pm
AG

Oh … and as for that “ice cores show CO2 follows warming phases” claim?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ (see how I post links so people can check my claims?)

“This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 5:36pm
PhilBest

AG (337) Vote: 0 1 Says:

January 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“Thanks, getstaffed.

Couple of points immediately leap out. It isn’t 650 of the “world’s top climatologists” speaking out. It’s 650 “scientists”, ranging from (yes) some climate scientists to “a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering at Auckland” and “head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.”…”ETC

AG, how about applying your standards of scepticism to the people who actually write the IPCC reports? Are you aware of the actual qualifications of the 24 vital lead authors of the chapter on Climate Science? And were you even aware that that is the crucial number of people behind “the science”? All this stuff about “2,500” “scientists”, is a far, far more dishonest stretch than what you are complaining about; furthermore, many of that “650” that you are complaining about, are among the IPCC’s “2,500”; it is just that their input by way of review is totally ignored by the 24-strong cabal who were initially appointed by James Hansen, Maurice Strong, and Bert Bolin, hmmmmmmm, wonder what the necessary credentials were, to get picked by those people……

And so much for the lie that this is a “peer reviewed” process, too……
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 5:36pm
PhilBest

“Lack of evidence makes evolution poor science”

AG takes exception to CraigM on that point. CraigM is right on that point as well as on the subject of Climate “science”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 5:39pm
AG

OK, PB and CraigM … we’re clearly talking different languages here, so I suspect I’m banging my head on a brick wall, But anyway…

(1) The evidence for AGW does not stand or fall on the IPCC … even if this body really was the conspiracy you intimate, so what. You once again dissolve the scientific enterprise into human factors – am I dealing with a couple of lecturers in social theory here, or what?

(2) If I’m going to have to argue the freakin’ theory of evolution with you, then I’m afraid I think you are a moonbat. Evolution is a theory. If it is wrong, disprove it. Show me a rabbit in the permian.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 5:48pm
PhilBest

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=1069

IPCC report criticized by one of its lead authors
Politics, not science, drives the United Nations’ work on climate change, warns Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s leading atmospheric physicists
“It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say. It uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen. It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters.”
Written By: Paul Georgia
Published In: Environment & Climate News > June 2001
Publication date: 06/01/2001
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

——————————————————————————–

“The Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), expected to be released sometime in 2001, is already coming under heavy criticism from various directions. But none has been more devastating than the one delivered on March 1 by one of the report’s lead authors.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists, told a standing-room only audience at a briefing sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition in the U.S. Senate Environment Committee Room, that the IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science.

What are some of the problems with the IPCC process, according to Lindzen? It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say. It uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen. It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters. It exploits what scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the global warming agenda. And it exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists.

No consensus here

The “most egregious” problem with the IPCC’s forthcoming report, said Lindzen, “is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on.”

Indeed, most press accounts covering the January release of the TAR’s “Summary for Policymakers” characterized the report as the work of 2,000 (3,000 in some instances) of the world’s leading climate scientists. IPCC’s emphasis, however, isn’t on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries, said Lindzen. The truth is only a handful of countries do quality climate research. Most of the so-called experts served merely to pad the numbers.

“It is no small matter,” said Lindzen, “that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world’s leading climate scientists.’ It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.”

The IPCC clearly uses the Summary for Policymakers to misrepresent what is in the report, said Lindzen. He gave an example from the chapter he worked on, chapter 7, addressing physical processes.

The 35-page chapter, said Lindzen, pointed out many problems with the way climate computer models treat specific physical processes, such as water vapor, clouds, ocean currents, and so on. Clouds and water vapor in clouds, for example, are badly misrepresented in the models. The physics are all wrong, he said. Those things the models do well are irrelevant to the all-important feedback effects.

“The treatment of water vapor in clouds is crucial to models producing a lot of warming,” explained Lindzen. “Without them [positive feedbacks], no model would produce much warming.”

The IPCC summarizes the 35-page chapter in one sentence: “Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapor, sea dynamics and ocean heat transport.”

That, said Lindzen, does not summarize the chapter at all. “That is why a lot of us have said that the document itself is informative; the summary is not.”

Lindzen briefly discussed a paper he published in the March 2001 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, clarifying the water vapor feedback issue. Using detailed daily measurements, Lindzen and his coauthors from NASA showed that cloud cover in the tropics diminishes as temperatures rise, cooling the planet by allowing more heat to escape.

“The effect observed,” said Lindzen, “is sufficient such that if current models are absolutely correct, except for missing this, models that predict between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees warming go down to about .4 to 1.2 degrees warming.”

Not the way science is done

The IPCC claims its report is peer-reviewed, which simply isn’t true, Lindzen said. Under true peer-review, he explained, a panel of reviewers must accept a study before it can be published in a scientific journal. If the reviewers have objections, the author must answer them or change the article to take reviewers’ objections into account.

Under the IPCC review process, by contrast, the authors are at liberty to ignore criticisms. After having his review comments ignored by the IPCC in 1990 and 1995, Lindzen asked to have his name removed from the list of reviewers. The group refused.

The IPCC has resorted to using scenario-building in its policymakers’ summary to paint a frightening picture not supported by the science, Lindzen charged. Ignoring the science allows the IPCC to build a scenario, for example, that assumes man will burn 300 years’ worth of coal in 100 years. They plug that into the most sensitive climate model available and arrive at a truly frightening global warming scenario.

“People wouldn’t normally take that very seriously,” said Lindzen, “but I think the IPCC understands the media will report the top number. I don’t think, any longer, that this is unintentional.” ……..

ETC…….

Follow the link and read it all…….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 5:50pm
AG

PB

Talk is cheap … money talks.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/betting-on-climate-change/

“I’ve recently been trying to establish consensus on the subject of global temperature rise, by arranging bets with sceptics who claim that the IPCC TAR is overly alarmist. Richard Lindzen was the first I noted who forecast here that over the next 20 years, the climate is as likely to cool as warm, and said he would be prepared to bet on it. However, when challenged to a bet, it turns out that he expects odds of 50:1 in his favour, ie he will only bet on the chances of cooling being at the 2% level or higher, far short of his 50% claim. My quick and dirty estimate above based on the IPCC TAR suggests that they would put the probability at more like 10%, so his offer actually appears to affirm the IPCC position. He also suggested an alternative bet (see here for my comments on this article) based on the amount of warming: >0.4C warmer and I win $5,000, <0.2c and he wins $10,000. Again, no-one who believes the IPCC summary would find his offer attractive, since it has negative expected value. The chances of winning and losing are roughly equal, so there does not appear to be any possible justification for his expectation of a 2:1 ratio (in his favour) in the stakes. In both cases, in contrast to his words, his position seems to be more alarmist than the IPCC!

The list of sceptics who have refused to bet against the IPCC position has grown steadily since then, and now also includes Michaels, Jaworowski, Corbyn, Ebell, Kininmonth, Mashnich and Idso (all my blog posts and related comments are linked from here). While I would be happy to take money off any or all of them, there is more to this than sceptic-bashing and a few high-profile bets – it could also perhaps result in a working market that would generate a true consensus and, furthermore, provide the socially and economically valuable function of allowing the vulnerable to hedge against risks.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 5:56pm
PhilBest

Does the complete absence of numerous essential missing links in the fossil record after more than a century of scientists best efforts, NOT constitute “disproof”, AG? Not to mention the inconvenient fact that we’ve still got primates and other “earlier” forms with us today.

YOU try and prove that there can’t be a controlling supreme being………mathematicians who work with advanced probability theory are almost to a man, believers in such a thing, because “chance” just doesn’t cut it as an explanation.

Scientific advances, such as the “big bang” theory, tend to fit better and better with a creation theory. Perhaps one day, it will be the only honest “scientific” position?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 6:17pm
AG

Right. I’m outta this one. Sorry, but we’ve nothing to say to each other.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 6:25pm
PhilBest

Hmmm, we’ll see, on the subject of climate bets. I can understand that those who predict cooling, are predicting less cooling than the amount of warming predicted by those who are predicting warming. I don’t agree that that constitutes an unfair bet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 6:26pm
PhilBest

AG (341) Vote: 0 0 Says:

January 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“Right. I’m outta this one. Sorry, but we’ve nothing to say to each other.”

Bigot !
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 6:30pm
kiwi in america

For those of you who followed the intense debate concerning the recent war in Gaza conducted by Israel, you may recall spoff posted a lengthy defence of the Palestinian/Hamas position with regard to various ME conflicts. I was travelling in NZ on holiday and had no access to my resource material when the debate was raging. This is the rebuttal post I promised spoff. I apologise for its length but spoff covered a lot of ground and gave us a good thorough airing of Palestinian revisionist history that cannot go unrebutted. If David blogs again on Gaza,I will repost this.

Spoff said “I am a single state solution man. The success of partition is directly relative to its perceived fairness. In this case, that opportunity was lost many years ago. I do not buy the thesis that the Palestinians missed the opportunity, it was never given them and I can prove it using only the statements and documents of the principal actors of the time”

The history of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians boils down who has legitimate claim to the land occupied by what is called the State of Israel. These issues include who has the longest claim to the land, who was on the land during the period of time when Palestine was administered by the British Mandate and what was the process the UN used to determine the boundaries that became Israel

Spoff said “I do not support states based on either religion or race. It is my view that Israel desires the entire territory but not its indigenous people. The history of this affair has seen the Palestinians share whittled down to the pittance of Oslo.
I think I have dealt with 1948 and the fact that the forces involved were 90,000 Israeli to 68,000 Arab League and that, on no occasion did Arab forces cross the line of partition. Israel’s existence was never threatened.”

These are the facts of the 1948 war:
• 17 May 1948 (the day after independence) – Tel Aviv was bombed by Egyptian aircraft. The Associated Press described the beginning of the war “Dispatches from Arab capitals said the invasion armies of 5 Arab armies hammered away with air and artillery attacks at outlying Jewish settlements….enemy planes attacked Ashdot Yaacov, Afikim and Ein Geg being pounded from the trans Jordan hills”
• Arab forces targeted soft Israeli civilian areas whilst the fledgling IAF targeted Arab military bases and installations
• Israel only took land where there were predominant Jewish settlers such as Western Galilee whereas the Egyptians and Jordanians according to Benny Morris indulged in “a multinational land grab …the evolving Arab plans failed to assign any of these whatsoever to the Palestinians or to consider their political aspirations” The occupation of Gaza by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan was never condemned by the UN.
If you take out the inhospitable Negev desert, the partition plan approved by the UN General Assembly in Nov 1947 was an even split of land and recognized the majority populations in each proposed partitioned area.

Your troop numbers are similarly revisionist. At the outbreak of the war the Arab Nations (these are only troops actually committed to the war) strength comprised:
• Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husayni (Nazi collaborator in WW2) group Fatuwa had 12,000
• Najjada 2,000
• Arab Liberation Army 6,000
• Jordan’s Arab Legion 8 – 12,000 + 3,000 of the Jordan Frontier Force
• Iraq’s Expeditionary force committed to Palestine reached 15 – 18,000
• Egypt committed 20,000 to the war
• Syria committed 12,000 troops to the war
• Lebanon committed 1,000
• Saudi Arabia sent 1,000
TOTAL ARAB FORCES 85,000

Israel
Yishuv total strength began at 35,000 and it was not until near the end of the war by July 1949 that total Israeli army troops committed to the war exceeded the Arab armies. It would appear that the Arab armies thought they had numerical superiority and were unprepared for the rapid rate at which the now unified Israeli Defence Force was able to recruit, train and deploy additional troops. It is important also to note that the total Arab forces actually committed to the war were about HALF of the total troops under arms in each nation so even at the end of the war, even though Israel had increased its deployed troops strength dramatically, it still faced a possible total army deployment from its Arab neigbours that was still potentially 30% larger.

Spoff said “The Arab League did not move until May 15. It is important to remember that date for on March 2 Israeli forces attacked the village of El Manara (490 Arab inhabitants), chased its inhabitants out, destroyed some houses, and left leaflets behind warning the inhabitants not to return because the village had been mined. On April 10, they attacked the adjoining village of Nasr-ed-Din (with 90 Arab inhabitants) and destroyed all its houses, killing most of its inhabitants, including women and children, and expelling all the rest. The siege of Tiberius was April 3 – 16, Deir Yassin April 9 ….and so on. The siege of Jaffa began on April 25. This is particularly significant because it was outside the proposed Jewish State.
I repeat, all this happened before the Arab League acted, before the war began.”

Arab and Palestinian sympathizers attacked Jewish settlements all through the civil war in late 1947 to 1948 BEFORE independence. In January 1948, al Husayani’s militias has organized a blockade of Jerusalem and at the same time the Arab Liberation Army began action against Jewish settlements in the coastal north.
“Most of Palestine’s 700,000 “refugees” fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops” said Benny Morris in Fact, Fiction, & Propaganda about 1948, article in The Irish Times, 21 February 2008. “The Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish attacks or fear of impending attack, and from a sense of vulnerability”. According to Morris, expulsions were ‘almost insignificant’ and ‘many more left as a result of orders or advice from Arab military commanders and officials’ to safer areas within the country. The Palestinian leadership struggled against the exodus p139 The Birth Revisted by Morris so spoff quotes Morris selectively.

Sir John Troutbeck, a British diplomat in Cairo, went to Gaza on a fact-finding mission in June 1949. He reported that while the Palestinian Arab refugees “express no bitterness against the Jews they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states. ‘We know who our enemies are,’ they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes.”

In the case of Ein Karem, William O. Douglas recorded that “the villagers were told by the Arab leaders to leave. It apparently was a strategy of mass evacuation, whether or not necessary as a military or public safety measure.” From eyewitness accounts, Douglas found that this, along with fear of Jewish attack, was a key reason for the exodus from Ein Karem.

Morris also documented that the Arab Higher Committee ordered the evacuation of “several dozen villages, as well as the removal of dependents from dozens more in April-July 1948. “The invading Arab armies also occasionally ordered whole villages to depart, so as not to be in their way.”

A May 3, 1948 Time Magazine article states:
The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city. More than pride and defiance was behind the Arab orders. By withdrawing Arab workers, their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa. Jewish leaders said wishfully: ‘They’ll be back in a few days. Already some are returning. ”One entire jetty,’ cabled TIME Correspondent Eric Gibbs, ‘was packed with these refugees, sitting on their pathetic bundles or clutching them with the strength of despair. What did these simple, bewildered people seize in the moment of panic? A small Turkish carpet, a radio, a sewing machine were among the treasures. Hour after hour they sat, waiting for barges, British landing craft and other odd boats now doing ferry service across the blue bay to Acre.’ Other thousands fled to the Arab-held hills near Nablus.]
Evidence such as this led Shmuel Katz to conclude in his book Battleground “that the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel. He explains that “The Arabs are the only declared refugee group who became refugees not by the action of their enemies or because of well-grounded fear of their enemies, but by the initiative of their own leaders.”

Former Prime Minister of Syria Khalid al-Azm recalled in his memoirs:
“Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees to their country, while it is we who made them leave it. We brought disaster upon one million Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave their land, their homes, their work and their industry. We have rendered them dispossessed, unemployed, whilst every one of them had work or a trade by which he could gain his livelihood.”

After the war, a few Arab leaders tried to present the Palestinian exodus as a victory by claiming to have planned it. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Said was later quoted as saying: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”
Contemporary Jordanian politician Anwar Nusseibeh believed that the fault for the exodus and military loss was with the Arab commanders:”the commanders of the local army thought in terms of the revolt against the British in the 1930s. The rebels had often retreated to the mountains, which made sense, as the British had not sought to take control of the country. But the Jews were fighting for complete domination, so the fighters had erred in withdrawing from the villages instead of defending them. He blamed himself as well. ‘I underestimated the strength of my own people,’ he wrote. His central thesis, however, was that the Palestinian Arabs could have won the country had their leaders not sabotaged the war effort and known how to cooperate.

The Arab National Committee of Haifa, the Arab leadership in Haifa in 1948, wrote and delivered a report on the flight of roughly 60,000 Arabs from Haifa. The report said, “The removal of the Arab inhabitants from the town was voluntary and carried out at our request.”

“Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring, brotherly states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down,” wrote Habab Issa of Al-Hoda, the leading newspaper for Lebanese Maronites in the United States. A Muslim weekly newspaper in Beirut similarly reported, “Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leader? The Arab States, and Lebanon amongst them, did it!”

Mahmoud Abbas, at the time Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, would later recall: “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”

On the 1967 War
Spoff said “It is usually sufficient to quote….
General Peled, Israel’s chief of staff “The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.” and Yitzhak Rabin: “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it” (Le Monde, 29 February 1968)
…..to dispel the existential threat myth but KIA is an Oren fan so I will have to go further.
In 1982, the Israelis admitted that they had started the war. Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him” (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).
One must understand the context of the times. Israel was harassing the Syrians to clear the ground for their diversion of the Jordan River:
Moshe Dayan, Israel’s defence minister at the time, said that 80 per cent of these confrontational episodes were planned and executed by Israel…..
“It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough some place where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarised area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end [the] Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
“And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was.”
In April 1967, one of these Israeli provocations became a full-fledged aerial battle with the Syrians. The Israelis shot down six Syrian planes, including one over Damascus.
At this point Gamal Abdel Nasser, president of Egypt, was highly criticised for his ineffectiveness and was seen as simply an orator, and not a doer, for Arab nationalism and unity. He signed a defense pact with Syria and sent troops into the Sinai hoping to deter an Israeli attack. With his first rank forces bogged down in Yemen, the forces available to him were ill-equipped and took up defensive positions only.
On receiving Soviet intelligence that Israel was about to attack, Nasser asked that the UN forces be moved onto the Israeli side of the border. He did not wish to be responsible for UN casualties. U Thant (U.N. Secretary General)said in his memoir that the war could have been avoided had Israel complied with this request but they refused, the UN withdrew.
It was at this point that Israel attacked.
One interesting theory has it that Israel’s attack was prompted by fears that Nasser planned a surgical strike on Israel’s nuclear weapons facility at Dimona.”

These quotes need to be balanced with the following:
Damascus radio incited its listeners “Arab masses this is your day rush to the battlefield Let them know we shall hang the last imperialist soldier with the entrails of the last Zionist” President Assad of Syria ordered his troops to “strike the enemies civilian settlements and turn them into dust, pave the roads with the skulls of Jews – strike them without mercy” and described the coming battle as one of annihilation.

The Iraqi PM predicted “There will be practically no Jewish survivors”.

Israel’s PM Levi Eshkol told the Cabinet on 21st May 1967 “The Egyptians plan to close the straits or bomb the atomic reactor in Dimona. A general attack will follow, A war will follow in which the first 5 minutes will be decisive. The question is who will attack the other’s airfield’s first”

Jordan was told that it would not be attacked if it stayed out and it attacked Israel first by shelling the Israeli civilian areas injuring 1,000 and killing 20. Israel pressed on with its offensive in the eastern portion of Jerusalem AFTER Jordan rejected the cease fire proposed by the UN’s chief observer.

Spoff said “KIA will no doubt cite Oren’s contention that closing the Straits of Tiran was cassus beli.
This is hardly credible. Less than 5% of Israel’s trade flowed through the Straits and was easily re-routed. Nasser knew this as did the Israelis. It was a token gesture in protest at Israel’s behaviour in the Golan and Nasser offered a moratorium on it almost as soon as it was announced, along with an offer to have the World Court arbitrate the issue.”

The closure of the Straits of Tiran was recognized by the international community as an act of war. Muhammed Abd Hafiz, a paratrooper commander at Sharm al-Sheikh said “Of course the closing of the straits was a declaration of war” and Michael Oren cites about 4 different original sources as independent support for the quote. As quoted in Harb Haziran by Mustafa: Nasser himself boasted to a visiting delegation of Arab trade unionists “We knew the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba meant a war with Israel…if war comes it will be total and the objective will be Israel’s destruction”

Spoff said “Mordechai Bentov, a former member of the ruling coalition during the June war, said he had not voted in favour of the war because he was convinced that all diplomatic and political means had not been employed to obtain the reopening of the Gulf of Akaba. He added: “This whole story about the threat of extermination was totally contrived and then elaborated on afterwards to justify the annexation of new Arab territories.”

You quote the lone Cabinet dissenter – why not quote the memoirs of the overwhelming majority who supported the war.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 6:30pm
PhilBest

Sorry, got to go anyway, though……
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 6:33pm
getstaffed

KIA – A very educational post. Thank you. (and one of PhilBest proportions!)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 6:47pm
THNRGB

Right right mate…well I don’t much know about that, but I can say that # Tooheys Extra Dry Platinum is the drink for me!!! Boo on John Key!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 6:53pm
dad4justice

Boo on the Liarbour fungus.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 6:55pm
cha

Rush Limbaugh: I Fear Obama’s Repeal Of Bush-Era Secrecy Rules ‘Make It Easier’ To Hold Bush To Account

LIMBAUGH: What I’m afraid of is that what Obama did with this executive order is actually make it easier for the media to go get Bush documents. Because you know Pelosi and some of the guys over in congress are talking about war crimes trials and charges and so forth. […]
What I’m afraid of is what Obama’s done here is made the gathering of the information for this kind of stuff– This is not American. This is not America. This is not what America does. We don’t– This is Banana Republic kind of stuff.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 7:11pm
Atheist1

Phil Best “YOU try and prove that there can’t be a controlling supreme being”

LMAO. you poor dear. Wasting your life in believing this. Hahahahahaha. Take Dawkins’s advice sweetie. It ain’t there, so stop worrying and just enjoy yourself darling
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 7:41pm
Atheist1

or better still…trying surfing or skiing. Heaven, mate. Only better thing is pure, unadulterated, dirty sex
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 7:43pm
barry

I see on the BBC that there have been two death sentances handed down in the Sanlu trials. I guess theyve got it right.

Good news if it is – might get Fonterra to take there jobs a bit more seriously.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 22, 2009 10:41pm
wikiriwhis business

“or better still…trying surfing or skiing. Heaven, mate. Only better thing is pure, unadulterated, dirty sex”

and I know you’re saying god, god, while you’re at it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 23, 2009 9:09am
Atheist1

WB “and I know you’re saying god, god, while you’re at it.”

LOL. Yep. And sometimes even
JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 23, 2009 9:28am
cha

or better still…trying surfing or skiing. Heaven, mate. Only better thing is pure, unadulterated, dirty sex

Atheist1, me, I’ve always reserved ‘God it’s good” for indies thru the valley and “Jesus I’m scared!’ for spot X or the dump.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 23, 2009 9:44am
LUCY

KIA -Excellent well balanced post. Thank you
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 23, 2009 10:46am
joeAverage

KIA a damn good post , its good to read something worthwhile, unlike my rants 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 23, 2009 3:02pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Blog Bits

Conference companies throw toys »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Battle of Beersheba – Canadian Frustration – Balfour Declaration I THE G…
Utopia
"The paradox of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is that the phrase is used only by the very people who are suffering from it."
Not PC
Word of the day
Hompaddock
SEEMS HOW EXPENSIVE DOES NOT MATTER.
No Minister
Some sporting reflections
Point of Order
American Election Predictions: It’s Apocalypse in the USA
The Daily Blog
Open mike 02/11/2024
The Standard
The High Court says "Land Back"
No Right Turn
Why you should reject the term “Christian nationalism”
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
US military-industrial-sports complex.
Kiwipolitico
MILLION DOLLAR REWARD
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 7
Stats Chat
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
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