About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

November 17, 2009 7:20am by David Farrar

General Debate 17 November 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment229

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (229)

Login to comment or vote

Sonny Blount

It is natural that whatever people are programmed with by their society will be the first in people’s minds. But neither what has been done in the past nor the programming of society makes something good or right.

So there is something wrong with male breadwinner/female homemaker? What is it? You need to talk to ‘gaia’ or god about it because thats who gave us the roles.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 1:51pm
malcolm

But neither what has been done in the past nor the programming of society makes something good or right.

A statement so vapid, yet so inflammatory; it should come with it’s own fire-extinguisher.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 1:59pm
Ryan Sproull

So there is something wrong with male breadwinner/female homemaker? What is it? You need to talk to ‘gaia’ or god about it because thats who gave us the roles.

There is not something wrong with it. There is something wrong with uncritically accepting it and rejecting the reverse simply because it is the way things have been in the past.

And regarding your solutions to the various possible causes of single-parent families, can you explain a little further how “families” is the solution?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:03pm
Ryan Sproull

A statement so vapid, yet so inflammatory; it should come with it’s own fire-extinguisher.

Suggesting that “we’ve always done it that way” is not a sufficient justification for something is inflammatory?

True enough. It led to all kinds of conflict when people were saying it about slavery or women’s suffrage.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:05pm
philu

key just tried to get some reflected glory from the all whites victory..

and his speech was notable for being so crammed full of cliches..

it almost exploded..

(but he left out the classic..’on the day..sport was the winner!’..which i was disappointed about..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:09pm
Sonny Blount

Suggesting that “we’ve always done it that way” is not a sufficient justification for something is inflammatory?

Perhaps, “we’ve always done it that way” is because it is best practise.

And regarding your solutions to the various possible causes of single-parent families, can you explain a little further how “families” is the solution?

18yos clearly holding the value that ‘I must earn a decent, secure living to attract a decent wife and provide for a family’
or ‘I must choose a decent, secure man if I am to marry and have a family’ and sticking with those decisions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:13pm
Pete George

Sonny, in a free society how do you make everyone be in a “family” (presumably structured how you like them to be).

BTW, I believe the best arrangement for bringing up kids is usually a family with mother and father partners with one or other being the main earner (or shared responsibility). But that is just my cultural bias. Not all cultures follow that strict model.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:16pm
Ryan Sproull

Perhaps, “we’ve always done it that way” is because it is best practise.

Possibly, but not necessarily, so it needs to be backed up with reasons for it being best practice.

18yos clearly holding the value that ‘I must earn a decent, secure living to attract a decent wife and provide for a family’ or ‘I must choose a decent, secure man if I am to marry and have a family’ and sticking with those decisions.

Okay. How do you suggest these values are inserted/encouraged in children?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:17pm
malcolm

It’s a good statement, Ryan. Gets to the nub of a lot of issues. Vapid was probably the wrong word.

If you question why things are a certain way, people often assume you have something against that way. So they save time and go immediately on the defensive. It’s probably not an inefficient short-cut. A sort of mental “shoot first; ask and answer questions later”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:18pm
Ryan Sproull

I see what you mean. Yes, that does seem to be the tendency, Malcolm.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:22pm
Pete George

Coming back to the actual definition of patriarchal:

Patriarchy is a social system in which the male is head of the household, having authority over women and children.

This isn’t just dad, mum and kids, it is not just who is the sole or main earner, it is male authority and ownership over the other people in the family. I don’t think that would be a very popular concept these days.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:24pm
andrei

I don’t think that would be a very popular concept these days.

Nor is dairy farming but the income from that keeps you in the style of life to which you have become accustomed and will continue to do so until it is finally wrecked by Governmental parasitism.

I just checked it out, in the 1950s there were about three murders per annum in New Zealand – which is far far less than the number of children murdered by their “alternative” families in our enlightened age, let alone our murder rate even accounting for population increase.

Speaks for itself really
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:33pm
Sonny Blount

Okay. How do you suggest these values are inserted/encouraged in children?

The most effective way would be to take all the progressives out to a field, shoot them and use as fertiliser (but not Phil Goff, he is too useful).

But more practically, just do it. Find a job, find a partner, stay together, raise a family, then repeat.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:34pm
Brian Smaller

One of the appeals of the crocodilians, is that you don’t get any mixed signals from crocodiles

Except when they give that cheesy grin. But apparently you should never be taken in by it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:36pm
Ryan Sproull

The most effeective way would be to take all the progressives out to a field, shoot them and use as fertiliser.

How so?

But more practically, just do it. Find a job, find a partner, stay together, raise a family, then repeat.

Lead by example? But plenty of people are doing just that. Our “problem” citizens and youths aren’t paying attention.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:36pm
Sonny Blount

Lead by example? But plenty of people are doing just that. Our “problem” citizens and youths aren’t paying attention.

But I thought all you progressives had their ear?

All I know is that I’ll be keeping my kids away from your kids and other ‘problem’ citizens kids.

I can’t fix all those other kids but I can sure as hell look after mine, and that is my part of the deal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:39pm
Kelvin

Has anyone noticed the similarity between the White House recently announced “Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth” and the NZ Govt “Job Summit” ?
Perhaps Key has made quite an impression on Obama (or his advisors)!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:42pm
Pete George

So you don’t have any practical suggestions Sonny? Like pretty much everyone else. It’s easy to have ideals, far less easy to make everyone agree and follow them.

Patriarchy isn’t an ideal for most people.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:45pm
Brian Smaller

Perhaps Key has made quite an impression on Obama (or his advisors)!

Well Key seems to be bowing to every interest group here, so maybe you are right and that is why Obowma all but knocked his head on the floor to Akihito.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:46pm
stephen

Anyone else a little bewildered by that ‘Spud’ character at Red Alert?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:55pm
Ryan Sproull

But I thought all you progressives had their ear?

Don’t feel bad, we all make mistakes.

All I know is that I’ll be keeping my kids away from your kids and other ‘problem’ citizens kids.

I can’t fix all those other kids but I can sure as hell look after mine, and that is my part of the deal.

Well, sure, but you asked me about solutions to the problem at large, and I asked you for the same.

Trying to indoctrinate kids with your particular ideal of society would be a pretty mammoth nanny-state undertaking, of which I’m no great fan. I’m not even sure how you’d go about it. More regulation of TV shows so that kids see positive role models of the sort you suggest, teachers telling kids what is the right and wrong kind of family, perhaps tax incentives and legal penalties for adopting different family models, state-funded booklets explaining what kind of family a good New Zealand citizen has.

Combined, perhaps these measures could get that ideal into kids’ heads. Sounds pretty terrifying, though.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:58pm
stephen

That weird giraffe which went around schools in a trailer to promote – i forget – could be re-trained.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:05pm
Ryan Sproull

That weird giraffe which went around schools in a trailer to promote – i forget – could be re-trained.

Whanau, the Two-Parent Family Kakapo.

Kids, be like me,
And don’t be a fool.
If you’re gonna bone,
Here’s the golden rule:
Put a ring on her finger
And get yourself a job,
Cos crime and social problems
Are caused by drunken slobs.

Hey!
(chorus)
Whanau! Whanau!
The Two-Parent Kakapo!
Whanau! Whanau!
Get married before you blow!
(one child) Your loaaaaaaaaad!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:10pm
Ryan Sproull

And THAT is my cue to stop drinking Red Bull today.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:11pm
malcolm

I used to drink that stuff when I was programming. Once the foam starts coming out your mouth and you start spitting on your colleagues – but carry on talking anyway – it’s all over for the day.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:18pm
stephen

If that giant government scheme (bonus points for being fronted by a Kakapo) isn’t my kind of social engineering, nothing is…or ever will be.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:20pm
Redbaiter

“Patriarchy isn’t an ideal for most people.”

..and who the fuck would you be to speak for most people??
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:21pm
Pete George

Sort of obvious, isn’t it, the people speak for themselves. How many patriarchal families are there?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:30pm
malcolm

..and who the fuck would you be to speak for most people??

..because that’s RedBaiter’s job.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:30pm
Redbaiter

Better wisen up dumbarse. Its patriarchial families that are having all the kids, and they’re not in the west.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:38pm
Pete George

If you are a fan of patriarchal families maybe you could go and live there.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:51pm
Redbaiter

Wow- you changed the subject.

Why?

In fact, you’re bringing them out here by the dozen. What’s happened to your famous “liberal” tolerance for other cultures?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 3:56pm
Pete George

There you go, deceitful lying again, I’m not involved in immigration, nor in airlines.

And you seem a bit confused. You want all families here to be patriarchal, but you don’t want patriarchal families to have kids or to come here?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:01pm
RRM

[Quote: Sonny Blount] Denigrate and ridicule, that is the strategy of the left.
Retard. [/quote]

🙂 LOL
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:03pm
Sonny Blount

Ryan,

You don’t need a government program for everything. Last time I looked up the word ‘solution’ it didn’t say ‘when you have a government program for it’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:05pm
Ryan Sproull

You don’t need a government program for everything. Last time I looked up the word ’solution’ it didn’t say ‘when you have a government program for it’.

I’m just throwing around suggestions to fill the gap left by your “I’ll just keep my kids away from them” solution, as ways to implement your “kids have to start valuing family” solution.

Do you have any better ideas?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:07pm
Redbaiter

“And you seem a bit confused.”

That’s rich. You haven’t said anything that made sense since your gaffe over the number of patriarchal families, and the absurd claim that you speak for “most people”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:09pm
Luc Hansen

stephen (3148) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Anyone else a little bewildered by that ‘Spud’ character at Red Alert?

Anyone else bewildered by Red Alert?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:21pm
Pete George

I didn’t claim I speak for most people, that is you deceitfully taking what I posted and twisting it with your own lies. Your gaffe.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:21pm
Sonny Blount

Fuck Ryan,

That is a solution. What you do every day and how you raise your kids matters a hell of a lot more than any government programs. The end result is the society we see around us. It’s just so pervasive that perhaps you miss it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:23pm
Ryan Sproull

That is a solution. What you do every day and how you raise your kids matters a hell of a lot more than any government programs. The end result is the society we see around us. It’s just so pervasive that perhaps you miss it.

What I mean is that there are already two-parent families raising their kids well in New Zealand, and have been for some time, and it doesn’t seem to be rubbing off on our “problem” folk.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:36pm
Luc Hansen

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2120

Just a little something for you deniers out there. It basically says that by the time the IPCC reports come out, they are already out of date.

Understandably, we are now gathering data in ever-increasing quantity and accuracy as the scientific community understand the need for hard evidence if we to combat anthropomorphic climate change.

Also understandably, this evidence will not sway the ranters and haters out there who use the anonymity of the blogosphere to indulge their fantasies but I am sure the odd real person here would appreciate being updated on the very latest thinking.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:36pm
RightNow

Luc, aside from the debate about how much humans contribute to climate change, do you support a global cap and trade/ETS type of scheme as the response to it? Would you support 2% of our GDP being contributed to a global climate change regulatory organisation? I just don’t see how taxing individuals can possibly make a difference to climate change.
I’m also curious as to what we’re going to do to reduce the water vapour in the atmosphere, which is apparently more of a problem than CO2. How do we break the water cycle? We clearly need to stop evaporation ASAP or we’ll drown in our beds.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:47pm
jackp

Getstaffed, I think you are on to something about the ETS and the selling and buying of carbon credits. They did it in Los Angeles for awhile, meanwhile smog went up, and a lot of companies got rich and the small ones just couldn’t afford keeping up with them and went out of business. I am going to look into it. Usually if you follow the money trail it makes sense and it would make sense for Nick Smith lying to the public while in opposition and then changing overnight. . I wonder if John Key has some investments in the carbon trading scheme. This whole thing is starting to make sense now. Perhaps Wishart should study John Key”s net worth while this ETS scam is put into place.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:52pm
Sonny Blount

The title:

“As Effects of Warming Grow, U.N. Report is Quickly Dated”

Doesn’t mention anthropogenic anywhere. Warming is expected Luc, humans or no.

From wikipedia:

Interglacial optimum

An interglacial optimum, or climatic optimum of an interglacial, is the period within an interglacial that experienced the most ‘favourable’ climate that occurred during that interglacial, often during the middle part. The climatic optimum of an interglacial follows, and is followed by, phases that are within the same interglacial and that experienced a less favourable climate (but nevertheless a ‘better’ climate than during the preceding/succeeding glacials). During an interglacial optimum, sea levels rise to their highest values, but not necessarily exactly at the same time as the climatic optimum.

The preceding interglacial optimum occurred during the Late Pleistocene Eemian Stage, 131–114 ka. During the Eemian the climatic optimum took place during pollen zone E4 in the type area (city of Amersfoort, Netherlands). Here this zone is characterized by the expansion of Quercus (Oak), Corylus (Hazel), Taxus, Ulmus (Elm), Fraxinus (Ash), Carpinus (Hornbeam), and Picea (Spruce). During the Eemian Stage sea level was about 8 meters higher than today and the water temperature of the North Sea was c. 2°C higher than at present.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:52pm
RightNow

I had a look at your link though. I liked this comment (among others)

IMHO, it should have explained that “outdated” really means: The IPCC’s major conclusion — that warming of the past 50 years is “very likely” (= 90-99% sure) anthropogenic — is no longer valid, being based on the misuse of inadequate climate models. It has also been falsified by recent observations.

(Prof) S. Fred Singer
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Posted by S. Fred Singer on 09 Jun 2009
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:53pm
Sonny Blount

“climate modelers have continued to feed them into their supercomputers.”

This isn’t observational science Luc. It’s unverified computer modeling (akin to astrology as far as scientific disciplines go).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 4:55pm
Pete George

The computer models are improving all the time as they are refined and more data becomes available.

The Singer model is still sewing his seeds of contraryism.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:01pm
Luc Hansen

Sonny, no-one says natural warming isn’t expected at times. What is frustrating here is that all the sensible questions, and even some not-so-sensible ones, are answered in the IPCC reports. For example, the reports detail uncertainties and incomplete data in great detail. Once again, here is the link for the IPCC report that addresses most of the queries raised by pseudo-scientists and skeptical scientists, which are almost universally not climatologists and are most definitely a dwindling minority.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

This is an extract pertaining to your earlier post. And it also explains how modeling fits into the science. You know, the first trip to the moon only existed in modeling until it actually occurred. Global warming has already occurred and recovered data is now feeding into the models projecting the future. I urge you to look carefully at this freely available information.

It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is consistent with the scientiﬁ c understanding
of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in green- house gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientiﬁc understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity. Climate models provide a suitable tool to study the various inﬂuences on the Earth’s climate. When the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases are included in the models, as well as natural external factors, the models produce good simulations of the warming that has occurred over the past century. The models fail to reproduce the observed warming when run using only natural factors. When human factors are included, the models also simulate a geographic pattern of temperature change around the globe similar to that which has occurred in recent decades. This spatial pattern, which has features such as a greater warming at high northern latitudes, differs from the most important patterns of natural climate variability that are associated with internal climate processes, such as El Niño.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:26pm
Sonny Blount

The computer models are improving all the time as they are refined and more data becomes available.

Thats the point Pete, they are improving. ie. there is not ONE definitive model yet.

Currently a better model is to look at the past and extrapolate it to the future. Any 10 year old can look at the graphs on this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

And tell you it’s gonna get a lot colder in the next few thousand years.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:28pm
getstaffed

Pete, there’s a article about climate models here. They refer to MAGICC (latest version was developed under a grant from the EPA) which can be downloaded from here.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:28pm
Repton

This isn’t observational science Luc. It’s unverified computer modeling (akin to astrology as far as scientific disciplines go).

About half of the words in that sentence are true.

Astrology is a poor comparison because astrology consistently fails to predict anything. Whereas, as I understand it, computer climate models do a reasonable job of predicting the present, given historical data. Not perfectly, of course (and you should be suspicious of any model that does perfectly model known conditions), but well enough that they’re worth looking at.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:29pm
philu

this is very cool..!

http://whoar.co.nz/2009/unbelievable-leopard-seal-encounter-video/

(another ‘aspirational-one’ for clintoiid..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:33pm
Adolf Fiinkensein

You know, if computer modelling was any fucking good, stock market chartists would have used it years ago to make fortunes.

It isn’t any bloody good so they all went broke and became climate scientists. The pricks now have made fortunes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:36pm
dad4justice

Is this blog a troll farm for pc lefty liberal geeks? I mean to say mal, lunk and petey, georgie girl and the drug addict phool linking whoring like a caged rat on acid.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:37pm
Sonny Blount

the warming is inconsistent with the scientiﬁc understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors

Because the scientists weren’t around to observe the last interglacial period. They have no idea what is consistent because this is the first time they have observed it.

Climate models provide a suitable tool to study

When the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases are included in the models

the models produce good simulations of the warming that has occurred over the past century

The models fail to reproduce the observed warming when run using only natural factors

the models also simulate a geographic pattern

Models, models, models, anything about measurable data?

How come the conclusions were formed and predictions made well before these models were ‘improved’ if they are so important to the understanding of climate.

ou know, the first trip to the moon only existed in modeling until it actually occurred.

And it’s a hell of a lot simpler than modeling the climate, and they were able to correct things as they went.

Computer models for car impact tests are also very good now, only because they were able to do real life tests against the models and improve them, the one thing laking from climate models.

How many computer programs (which these models are) run perfectly before live tests? Can windows who spend billions and billions and have the best people have a piece of code run perfectly the first time? After all running a logical computer operating system is a hell of lot easier than modelling life on earth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:40pm
Sonny Blount

Repton,

How about quantifying this statement:

computer climate models do a reasonable job of predicting the present

What is the temperature variation over the last 50 years or so and what is the margin of error in the predictions?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:42pm
dad4justice

Sonny, the lefty hip hop climate change freaks will argue that windows and google can change the weather. Keyboard cowboys on bullshit acid. Have a raw steak phool you vege twit. Must go the computer needs a good water. Fuck off with the bullshit gals and liberal wimps.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 5:43pm
Steve

stephen @ 2.55
“Anyone else a little bewildered by that ‘Spud’ character at Red Alert?”
Spud is a reincarnated ‘Max Headroom”
Max never grew up either
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:01pm
getstaffed

Models are the product of processes (various theoretical) and data (various source types [terrestrial, ocean, and satellite], each with varying data quality controls).

The result is a matrix of permutations which means, once again, someone can run enough data through enough varied processes until they get the ‘evidence’ to support their hunch.

If you’re interested in the quality of terrestrial temperature data, check out this paper: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?.

pp16 shows that only 11% of monitoring stations are classified as reliable. pp18-29 shows photographs of why this reliability is so low.

The great prophet Algore (All credits be to him)™ launched his dream of carbon credit wealth off the back of this kind of junk science.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:06pm
philu

“..Have a raw steak phool you vege twit..”

dad..i have seen vid of you..

do you consider yourself an advertisment for the carnivorous lifestyle..?

eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:12pm
dad4justice

phool that murder business was heavy crap and 60 minutes want to talk. I enjoy meat and at least I do more than some deranged drug addict siiting all day on a stupid fucking computer wanking dribble rhetoric everywhere!! Get in the ring you jerk. No doubt the police have a vid of you when you robbed the chemist shop. Remember deranged addict?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:17pm
Kris K

Luc Hansen 4:36 pm,

Understandably, we are now gathering data in ever-increasing quantity and accuracy as the scientific community understand the need for hard evidence if we to combat anthropomorphic climate change.

So, Luc, it’s “anthropomorphic climate change” now, is it?
Not ‘anthropomorphic global warming’?

So I guess that means man is responsible for both global warming and global cooling?
So does that mean the last 10 years of global cooling are ALSO a result of man’s activities?

Kind of like having your cake and eating it too, eh Luc?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:20pm
Nomestradamus

Phool says:

dad..i have seen vid of you..

D4J responds:

No doubt the police have a vid of you when you robbed the chemist shop.

And with that it’s game, set and match to D4J. Damn – the boxing match didn’t even last a round! 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:26pm
malcolm

The result is a matrix of permutations which means, once again, someone can run enough data through enough varied processes until they get the ‘evidence’ to support their hunch.

The second part of your sentence gives an incorrect impression. With stochastic modelling the free inputs are randomly generated according to their estimated distributions, and the model is run many, many times. This gives you a distribution of outcomes for whatever you’re interested in. It’s not a case of running the simulation until you get a single outcome which matches what you want. And because you have a distribution of outcomes, you get results that look like this “there’s a 90% chance that X will exceed Y”. And which is why you’ll never get a black and white answer; only a range with associated probabilities.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:26pm
Pete George

getstaffed 6:06 pm If you’re interested in the quality of terrestrial temperature data, check out this paper:

Another from the Heartlands list.

But the results did not match Watts’s expectations; a NOAA analysis of the Surface Stations data showed “no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

The NOAA response: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:29pm
Luc Hansen

RightNow, sorry, forgot to reply.

I’m not a fan of privatising global warming, which is what ETS does, essentially. I’m concerned about the potential for rorts and the prospect of paying some countries for smarter forgery than genuine reductions in emissions. While I have some sympathy for a carbon tax with individual tradeable rebates, the same basic objections apply. However, we must start somewhere and thanks to the naysayers here, I have done enough research now to be changed from a reluctant advocate for action to fully supporting effective or even semi-effective schemes.

I have posted this link before http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com which supports technological innovation rather than cap and trade schemes. But what if the innovation doesn’t occur?

New Zealand is in a unique position, as far as I know, in that 40% of emissions derive from our livestock, so why we aren’t pouring millions into a drive for discovery of some method of reducing our methane emissions is a source of wonderment to me. We could even contract out to high achieving scientific communities such as that in Israel. It’s that important.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:30pm
philu

‘vids’ weren’t invented then..it was so long ago..

you didn’t answer the question..

do you think you are an advertisment for the carnivorous lifestyle..?

i mean..you are about sixty..?..aren’t you..?

(but you do look older..eh..?..)

y’know..you spend your whole like eating dead meat/fat/blood..

and you end up looking like a piece of dead meat yrslf..

eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:31pm
Kris K

Malcolm,

I responded to your comment/invitation over on ‘Belle de Jour revealed’.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/11/belle_de_jour_revealed.html#comment-632456
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:33pm
Luc Hansen

Kris, yes, that is exactly the case. Some emissions actually cause cooling before they cause warming. Think of nature’s clouds. They have a localised warming effect, yet overall act to cool the planet. On the other hand, the human induced ozone hole, which is particularly large at the moment, is responsible for a temporary localised cooling effect over Antarctica

see http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/03/us/ozone-hole-is-now-seen-as-a-cause-for-antarctic-cooling.html

Anyway, doesn’t your Bible solve it all?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:38pm
andrei

New Zealand is in a unique position, as far as I know, in that 40% of emissions derive from our livestock, so why we aren’t pouring millions into a drive for discovery of some method of reducing our methane emissions is a source of wonderment to me. We could even contract out to high achieving scientific communities such as that in Israel. It’s that important.

which goes to show how brain dead you are.

Don’t North American livestock emit more GHGs than ours? There are a great deal more fucking cows in North America than here ! And in India. And in Europe. And in Africa. So why are ours worse for the planet?

So Einstein why are we being penalized for our cows and sheep?

Fuck we are living in a country filled with morons.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:39pm
getstaffed

Pete, 89% of NOAA’s Surface Stations fail to meet their own specification for placement.

But if you feel the need to cite NOAA’s own defensive spin in claiming that a temperature sensors on asphalt and close to heating ventilation unit have no impact then go right ahead.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:42pm
Kris K

… that reminds me.

Dinner:
Crumbed schnitzel, baked potatoes, steamed broccoli, with a nice cheese and mustard sauce.
Yum, can’t wait.

Thanks Phool.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:45pm
malcolm

Thanks Kris, I’m pondering my reply and will write it after dinner for you. It is making me think. Cheers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:47pm
Kris K

Luc Hansen 6:38 pm,

Kris, yes, that is exactly the case. Some emissions actually cause cooling before they cause warming. Think of nature’s clouds.

That must be one big ‘cloud’ to have resulted in 10 years of cooling, Luc.
So when exactly is this ‘cooling trend’ going to stop, Luc?
Do you or you experts have any idea, or will we only know once we arrive?

And which of the IPCC computer models predicted the last ten years of cooling?
And I mean ahead of time, not retrospectively.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 6:54pm
Luc Hansen

Andrei, I don’t know the US’s livestock emissions, but what I do know is that as a country we have the highest percentage of emissions from livestock. I checked over what I wrote above and I can’t see how to express it more clearly. Perhaps you would like to read it again and let me know if it is still not clear.

You can find more information here: http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/climate/greenhouse-gas-policies/greengas-14.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:18pm
Luc Hansen

Kris, who said anything about clouds causing the current cooling trend. Why don’t you take the time and go through the IPCC reports yourself. After all, you seem to know the Bible back to front so a piddly 400-odd page report shouldn’t be beyond you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:20pm
andrei

Andrei, I don’t know the US’s livestock emissions, but what I do know is that as a country we have the highest percentage of emissions from livestock.

You fucking moron the reason why we “as a country we have the highest percentage of emissions from livestock” is because we don’t’ have much heavy industry and we don’t generate much of our power with fossil fuels.

Our emissions are diddly and diddly per capita as well.

Never the less we will send money to countries with much higher per capita emissions, such as China under this fuck witted scheme.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:28pm
Luc Hansen

For those who don’t blindly believe the NOAA is part of some faceless conspiracy theory and are concerned about reports of risinf ocean temperatures (which has an effect on sea levels through thermal expansion) might like to look at this graph:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:29pm
Pete George

Did you read the NOAA link getstaffed?

Q. How has the poor exposure biased local temperatures trends?
A. A peer-reviewed study specifically quantified the potential bias in trends caused by poor
station exposure (Peterson, 2006). The analysis examined only a small subset of stations – all
that had their exposure checked at that time – and found no bias in long-term trends.

Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising
rapidly during the last 50 years?
A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and
breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and
river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier
in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. And a multitude of
species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in
mountainous areas, upward as well.

Scientists. Peer reviewed. Supported by observations.

Anthony Watts. Studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology. It is unclear whether he graduated.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:31pm
Hurf Durf

I love that Delirium drags out the WaPo, despite the fact it’s been shown to be a piece of shit multiple times.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:31pm
Pete George

Hurf, all media can be suspect, that’s why it’s worth cross checking with multiple sources. Would you rather I linked to an ABC poll which says the same thing?

What about this one, similar result: Fox News poll
More Americans have a negative view of Palin than have a positive one. While 38 percent say they have a favorable opinion of her, 51 percent have an unfavorable view.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/27/fox-news-poll-percent-disapprove-congress/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:45pm
Ryan Sproull

It’s not anthropomorphic anything. It’s anthropogenic. If it was anthropomorphic, we’d be talking about how much climate change hates Twilight novels.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:46pm
Pete George

Kris, the last ten years cooling has been debunked.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling

“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/27/mary-matalin/matalin-claims-earth-cooling/

etc etc
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:51pm
Hurf Durf

Don’t worry, Peteypoos, I’m sure you can pull out some SOURCECHECK DO-DO-DO about how Dr Nicholas Von Bleurgh is being paid off by EVIL BIG OIL and that they only way we can save ourselves is by submitting ourselves to Mother Gaia and instituting car-free days.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:55pm
Luc Hansen

Andrei, you have anger management as well as comprehension problems. You should get treatment.

Just as an aside, the point is not our total emissions as a percentage of global emissions (tiny) but to be seen to be doing our bit and not freeloading.

And I share your reservations about the current schemes but you need to come up with something other than mere ranting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 7:58pm
Steve

Luc Hansen,

You have been treated huh? Any left over drugs?
Pass them on to Phool, no questions asked
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 8:14pm
Ryan Sproull

Gar! Garrrrrrrgh! Internet arguments make Krong ANGRYYYYY! GAAARRRRRRR!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 8:17pm
Hurf Durf

Hey, Ry, weren’t you an editor of Crappum? Says it all, really.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 8:19pm
Steve

This lot of fuckwits have more tangents than Brian. Was that his mother’s fault?
Fuck off, but how shall we fuck off?
Brian just wanted the cheesemakers to have rights
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 8:19pm
Ryan Sproull

KRONG NO LIKE HURF DURF! KRONG SMASH!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 8:23pm
Luc Hansen

Thanks Ryan.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 8:25pm
Ryan Sproull

KRONG KNOW NO THANKS. KRONG SMASH THANKS.

INTERNET ARGUMENT VERY IMPORTANT!

KRONG MAKE SACRIFICE, PLEASE INTERNET ARGUMENT.

KRONG NO BELIEVE DPF HAVE NO FILTER OF ALL-CAPS COMMENTS!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 8:29pm
Ryan Sproull

KRONG GO NOW. KRONG WORK DONE. ALL GET ANGRY ABOUT INTERNET ARGUMENT AND TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY OR KRONG COME BACK ANGRY!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 9:21pm
Ryan Sproull

Hi, guys! It’s me, your pal Ryan! What did I miss?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 9:21pm
Redbaiter

“I love that Delirium drags out the WaPo, despite the fact it’s been shown to be a piece of shit multiple times.”

Its just one more example of the kind of ignorance that underpins Progressive ideas. They’re so stupid and unknowing they actually do think that we will be impressed by shit written in the Washington Post. They know nothing of the scorn that publication attracts outside the ever decreasing circle of progressivism. Its the same dated ignorance that underpins all their beliefs.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 9:28pm
Luc Hansen

Making progress on getstaffed’s list:

1. Why is the atmosphere cooling when carbon emissions are increasing?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/27/mary-matalin/matalin-claims-earth-cooling/

Thanks Pete
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 9:28pm
Totally Someone Else

Ryan, you just totally missed Krong. Oh my God.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 9:29pm
Pete George

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/naturalscience/index.html

CLIMATE CHANGE, GLOBAL WARMING & METEOROLOGY
* Scientist: Arctic Ocean to Be Ice-Free in Summer
* Texas Scorched by Worst Drought in 50 Years
* Huge Dust Cloud Circled World in 13 Days
* Bill Gates Joins Project to Tame Hurricanes
* Scientists: Rich Should Pay More for Global Warming
* Global Recession Cuts Down on Global Warming
* Global Warming May Be Slowing America’s Winds
* U.N.: Nature Best at Handling Climate Change
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 9:30pm
Pete George

Who made you the spokesperson for everyone else Red?
Narcissists Anonymous?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 9:33pm

More comments:

‹
1
2
3
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Irony

Suppression Orders and the Internet »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K 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

Centrist: NZ media downturn accelerates
Breaking Views
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
Bob Ekelund Remembered
Utopia
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
This Weeks Email To Prime Minister Luxon.
No Minister
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
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