About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

November 26, 2009 8:06am by David Farrar

General Debate 26 November 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment290

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (290)

Login to comment or vote

Steve

big bruv,

Do a backup first. Just get an external hard drive and copy and paste all of the important files and photos etc.
Then do as ‘Right Now’ says. System Restore is there for a reason, however you should disable any Antivirus Programs running and pull the Internet first. After System Restore enable Security. You will get the Windows/Microsoft Updates, so do a Custom Install with these.(there is no need for IE updates if you use Firefox) Just click the ‘do not ask again’ box.

Internet connection can be many things. Is the Hard Drive getting full? The error you mention points to this.
Almost impossible to fix over a blog lol, but those are some basic guidelines.
Just a thought, did someone click one of those ‘Scan your PC for Free’ things? If they did you could be in for a clean install.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 5:42pm
Steve

I keep hearing this funny noise.
I know it sounds foolish so I guess I will ignore it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 5:46pm
Kris K

Yvette 5:22 pm,

Kris K –
Is there any moral teaching to be taken from this, or is it history, which isn’t often moral; as opposed to the teaching of Jesus, which I’d think is moral.

I’m glad you raised this.
That old chestnut; incest in the Old Testament.

You have to ask when and why did God institute a law condemning incest to understand this.
Now I believe there were a literal Adam and Eve. Obviously their sons, Cain and Seth, had to marry someone. The only solution is that they married sisters, nieces, etc.
Now come forward to Lot’s time. His own uncle and aunt, Abraham and Sarah, were in fact half brother and sister. So today we would condemn Lot and all these individuals of incest.

But the law against incest only came about around the time when Moses received the ten commandments. As we know, Moses is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in fact lived quite a while after Jacob.

Incest only condemned from this point forward:

Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Lev 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. …
Lev 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

So while incest is condemned today, it was not prior to when Moses delivered it in Leviticus 18.
The biological reason is that prior to Moses the gene pool was sufficiently pure to have no subsequent harmful genetic mutations which we would suffer if incest were permitted today. One needs only consider the inbreeding and related health risks that some of the European royal families suffered due to marriage between close family members.

Hope this answers your question.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 5:49pm
Chthoniid

I am truly grateful for whoever sussed out the RIP add-ons, philu plus another few assorted morons have been removed from my kiwiblog experience permanently. A sincere thanks.

As a sidenote, what a rare display of test cricket competence by us… good stuff

The downside is that a certain frequent poster has a falloff in the negative-karma count.

Looks like the mercurial Black Caps are putting together a good performance though, hoping that the inconsistency-bug will be debugged this test.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 5:56pm
Kris K

MyNameIsJack 4:48 pm,

OK, Kris – put yourself in Lot’s place; what would YOU do?
I am what you would call an atheist and I know, without the need for gods, that the right thing to do is to protect my guests and my daughters.

I think it was a Clayton’s choice. If the angels hadn’t intervened then the sodomites outside would have broken the door down and had their way with whosoever they chose. I believe Lot knew this – he was likely trying to buy time.

Pete George 4:54 pm,

Really? You wouldn’t try to protect your children above all else, let alone for a couple of strangers?
“Hey, these are me mates, leave ‘em alone, fuck my daughters!” I’m a bit stunned.

As my answer above to MNIJ, Pete.
Lot basically had no choice. What do you do when you have absolutely no options, Pete?
The way our society is going someone will no doubt be confronted with exactly this predicament in the near future, if it hasn’t happened already somewhere.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:05pm
Dirty Rat

Big Bruv

The people who did in your computer are probably from the SIS. But because you have nothing to hide you shouldnt feel pissed off.
Just patriotic New Zealanders doing their thing to get rid of Lefties and List MP’s.

Be proud boy
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:05pm
starboard

IMO..religion is for the weak.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:14pm
Chthoniid

So while incest is condemned today, it was not prior to when Moses delivered it in Leviticus 18.
The biological reason is that prior to Moses the gene pool was sufficiently pure to have no subsequent harmful genetic mutations which we would suffer if incest were permitted today. One needs only consider the inbreeding and related health risks that some of the European royal families suffered due to marriage between close family members.

Wouldn’t it be just easier to design the human genome in a way that makes it less vulnerable to inbreeding. Afterall, a lot of island bird-species manage quite well with a high level of homogeneity. That way you could bypass the whole incest-is-ok, now-i-isn’t problem.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:15pm
Yvette

Kris K – your answers intrigue me, so do you have something to contribute on a question which has always puzzled me:

Why did Judas have to betray Jesus with a kiss, supposedly to identify him to the authorities, who must surely been totally clued up on who they were going to arrest?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:28pm
Luc Hansen

What a day on GB.

Posters obsessing on one poster to the extent of performing RIP, yet STILL coming on here and talking about him. Just who is the victor in this little contest?

The mad creationist having a field day denying science that is inconvenient to his beliefs. Note Belief n. esp without proof.

Of course, a belief backed up by evidence becomes fact. I don’t live in fear of that happening anytime soon 🙂

Then the climate change deniers are still desperately clinging on to out of context quotes from stolen emails while the rest of the world heads to Copenhagen.

And then there is Hurf Durf quoting a scientist supposedly applying long range climate models to monsoons, yet these models are based on long term averages and are not suitable for analysing or predicting individual extreme events. As the experts inform us:

Changes in climate extremes are expected as the climate warms in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activities, such as the use of fossil fuels. However, determining whether a specific, single extreme event is due to a specific cause, such as increasing greenhouse gases, is difficult, if not impossible, for two reasons: 1) extreme events are usually caused by a combination of factors and 2) a wide range of extreme events is a normal occurrence even in an unchanging climate. Nevertheless, analysis of the warming observed over the past century suggests that the likelihood of some extreme events, such as heat waves, has increased due to greenhouse warming, and that the likelihood of others, such as frost or extremely cold nights, has decreased

Furthermore, the report is quoted as sourced from The Telegraph, which is actually The Telegraph India, not the UK version. Nothing against India, but I wonder if this is deliberate misleading? And in fact, given the track record of the denial industry, is the whole passage quoted out of context?

After all, earlier I posted a Bible passage showing that Jesus clearly advocated stoning children to death, only to be informed that the proper context was that he was opposed to this practice.

Meanwhile, the leader of the free world has announced emissions reductions targets (initially, roughly in line with ours, effectively zero, but it’s the gesture that counts), and delegations from 192 countries and their assorted hundreds of “experts”, NGO’s by the truckload, MSM and not-so-MSM are all heading to the only show in town.

Don’t you guys ever get just a teensy, eensy bit lonely with all this shouting in the wilderness?

😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:36pm
Kris K

Chthoniid 6:15 pm,

Wouldn’t it be just easier to design the human genome in a way that makes it less vulnerable to inbreeding. Afterall, a lot of island bird-species manage quite well with a high level of homogeneity. That way you could bypass the whole incest-is-ok, now-i-isn’t problem.

Indeed.
And it was … originally (man and all creatures’ genomes) prior to sin corrupting it.
As a Christian I believe the errors started accumulating after Adam and Eve sinned until it became unsafe to allow marriage between close relatives.
We see similar issues arising where the gene pool is restricted amongst various species within the animal kingdom. Inbreeding within certain pedigree dog sub groups and some race horses, etc would be examples of artifical gene pool restrictions. I know some NZ native birds which were on the brink of extinction, and were then brought back, have issues about lack of genetic variation. And this is a concern to those involved in breeding them back.

PS I liked your Jesus Bird photo earlier – quite ‘on topic’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:36pm
dad4justice

Prisons are full, however Rudith says the Courthouse will do, while the public get ready for open mayhem in the inner city. The judges will get rolled at the Masonic meetings.
FFS what a brain dead bunch of thicko’s these bluecoats are. Maybe big blouse could Crush a braincell?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:43pm
reid

“Is there any moral teaching to be taken from this [Story of Lot]”

Yvette, you’ve hit on the most critical story in the Bible.

Lot was in fact a bad man, what father would give up his daughters to be raped? And then later on he takes the best land for himself while Abraham is left with the dregs. He deserved to die in Sodom but G-d spared him at Abraham’s behest.

Underlining their flawed lineage, his daughters prove they were equally bad: what daughter sleeps with their father?

They gave birth to a bastard: the Moabite Chieftan. The world has been a troubled place ever since and it continues today. The Moabites are still with us.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:49pm
big bruv

If you want to see the tragic results of inbreeding you only need visit Christchurch.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:49pm
dad4justice

You would know big blouse.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:51pm
starboard

aw geez bb..thats a bit harsh…IMO…Timaru is the inbreeding capital by far..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:53pm
dad4justice

big blouse is from the land of the twisted faces.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:54pm
Kris K

Yvette 6:28 pm,

Kris K – your answers intrigue me, so do you have something to contribute on a question which has always puzzled me:

Why did Judas have to betray Jesus with a kiss, supposedly to identify him to the authorities, who must surely been totally clued up on who they were going to arrest?

I believe Judas’ kiss was the ultimate act of betrayal by one of the inner circle; one of the twelve disciples. Why Judas chose this method to identify Christ is beyond me. But forever the name Judas will be associated with betrayal.

Perhaps the fact that Christ had always slipped through the fingers of the pharisees, etc up to that time was the reason they wanted Him identified immediately prior to His capture. The real reason they were successful, of course, was that Christ ‘allowed’ himself to be taken. Just as He allowed Himself to be crucified. Satan thought he had won a great victory, but it was Christ’s death on behalf of mankind that was the real victory:

1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Nice chatting, but I gotta go – our weekly Bible study calls.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 6:55pm
TimG_Oz

Reid – do you realise the link you posted is demanding that Israel hold onto all the territories?

I thought this was something you didn’t agree with….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 7:04pm
Pete George

This could be indicative of what a lot of the MSM think of climate change and the relative importance of the CRU release.

Climate of denial
Researchers show how not to respond to global warming skeptics.

By our reckoning — and that of most scientists, policymakers and almost every government in the world — the probability that the planet will warm in the long term because of human activity is extremely high, and the probability that allowing it to do so unabated will have disastrous effects is unacceptably large. The case that governments should hedge against that outcome is formidable enough. Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112403549.html

Most scientists and most media and most politicians are hard to argue against, especially in isolated pockets.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 7:24pm
Banana Llama

By my reckoning those people will swing from the lamposts in another decade Pete.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 7:33pm
Pete George

Really? The righteous few will kill nearly all scientists, politicians, journalists and editors?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:00pm
Redbaiter

I’ve told you before you commie swine. No shit from the Washington Post. Extreme left propaganda speiler.

http://lewwaters.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/washington-post-admits-left-winged-media-bias/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:04pm
Luc Hansen

Jeez reid, Kris K looks positively cool-as-sane besides the lot your link sent me too! 🙂

Pete, I agree with that post. The job of scientists is to do the science, not become advocates. However, they are humans as dependent on this planet as the rest of us and if they “can see it so clearly now”, we have to cut them a little slack, surely.

Anyway, for the deniers, your most common questions will be answered on RNZ at 8.40pm tonight. Do yourself a favour, and tune in. Also, soon is the third in a BBC series on relations between Islam and Judaism. The first two have been very informative and given me cause to rethink a couple of aspects on the ME muddle, for sure. You can also track down the episodes on BBC radio.

After that I gotta watch the latest episode of Democracy Now!

Busy night…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:09pm
Redbaiter

“Anyway, for the deniers, your most common questions will be answered on RNZ at 8.40pm tonight. Do yourself a favour, and tune in. ”

Another commie with tainted information sources. RNZ?? For fuck’s sake. when did they ever have a clue about anything?? Bunch of knuckle dragging progressives mired in last century’s left wing fantasies.

What are you people doing here with so much utterly worthless left wing crap????
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:14pm
philu

i’ve told you before..you fascist swine..no shit from fox..extreme right propaganda spieler..

plus..they just make stuff up/show fake footage..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:15pm
Pete George

Tut tut Red. I posted that as an example, not as gospel. Anyway, we need something here to balance your extreme right propaganda. Look back a few days for the details on RIP. It would be good if you blocked everything that smelled of commie. That could be a win win.

Would you believe it – this is true, in the garage I have several hammers, and also two sickles, one I broke and the other doesn’t have a handle, but they look the part.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:20pm
Pete George

What are you people doing here with so much utterly worthless left wing crap????

We’ve been missing you herding us towards all your useless right wing crap. We have been blogging unguided and unabused in the wilderness. Will such sins ever be forgiven? Doesn’t look like it, hell has returned.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:26pm
Redbaiter

“Anyway, we need something here to balance your extreme right propaganda. ”

Take it to Public Address.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:26pm
Banana Llama

Well no Pete quite a few politicians don’t agree with Anthropogenic global warming and i do believe thousands of scientists have disagreed with the claims made by global warming alarmists not to mention the plethora of blogs, small to medium newspapers and T.V networks that have shown skepticism.

I’m quite sure they will be safe with the majority.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:30pm
andrei

Pete a question for you from you link to the Washington Post

Climate of denial
Researchers show how not to respond to global warming skeptics.

See how the headline reads “Climate of Denial” doesn’t that imply that the headline writer has a dog in this fight and is not neutrally reporting a dustup from the world of science?

And then we get ” Researchers show how not to respond to global warming skeptics.”

So why are those who have had their Emails leaked “Researchers” whereas those who are challenging these gentlemen global warming skeptics even though in many cases they are equally qualified scientists and in my biased view more scientific since skepticism in fact is the default position of all good scientists.

Indeed more than anything else about this whole sorry saga it is the crushing of skepticism and dissent from the party line on Global Warming that is the most troubling

Your views?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:34pm
getstaffed

News from OZ: Liberals Nick Minchin, Eric Abetz, Stephen Parry, Tony Smith and Sophie Mirabella quit.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Exhibiting a brain and a spine. Well done.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:35pm
Redbaiter

“Exhibiting a brain and a spine. Well done.”

Turncoat Turnbull should never have been elected leader.

We need so called right wing poiliticians who can’t wait to do the left’s work for them like we need a hole in the head.

Time for a cleanout. In NZ, Australia and the US. No more right wing fakes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:39pm
Hurf Durf

Andrei, the WaPo’s just had to close three regional bureaus. That piece of shit is going down the toilet – and not a moment too soon.

Looks like the moderate centre left will have to find another fellow-traveller newspaper. The New York Slimes?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:43pm
Jack5

Re Big Bruv at 6.49: “…If you want to see the tragic results of inbreeding you only need visit Christchurch…”

Aren’t you the leftist always on about racism etc Big Bruv? Wouldn’t be because Christchurch is predominantly pakeha that you slander it, would it Big Bruv? Of course not, you are a vigorous opponent of such prejudice.

As a Christchurcher I can say the quality of the average citizen has declined in recent years, as riff-raff northerners drift in, attracted chiefly by vast Christchurch Council subsidised housing available as well as to poor locals, these choice settlers from round the country: ex jailbirds, the families who came south to visit them in prison, the drug addicts, itinerant burglars and the mentally ill our post-Christian society otherwise fails to shelter.

As for inbreeding, Maori arrived in only a few canoes, and it was around five centuries before new genes were added. If it weren’t for the addition of pakeha genes, they would be easily the most inbred people in the country and one of the most inbred in the world.

Like the birds Chthoniid mentions at 6.15, Maori came through okay. The Japanese gene pool for centuries was similarly isolated though the population was much bigger of course. They seem to be okay, too.

Theodore Dalrymple (Anthony Daniels) former general-practice psychiatrist and prison doctor in Britain, reported some sad outcomes of the common forced marriages between first cousins in the British-resident Pakistani community, but who knows what other factors were involved.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:48pm
Hurf Durf

Public Address is the blog equivilent of felching. I won’t be going back there any time soon.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:49pm
Pete George

“Climate of denial” could mean various things.

” Researchers show how not to respond to global warming skeptics.”
Yes, they are researchers at CRU.

Those against climate change are a small minority. And of those most aren’t scientific researchers.

“Global warming skeptic” is an inaccurate term anyway. All climate scientists should be global warming skeptics. The minority view is more like “those who don’t think climate change is a problem”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:52pm
dad4justice

“Public Address is the blog equivilent of felching”

Haha HD fucking brilliant mate. Wussell will be angry over at Wublic Dress . The Paris Hilton Blogosphere Inn is pathetic.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 8:56pm
Redbaiter

“Public Address is the blog equivilent of felching. ”

It makes my skin crawl to read it. So much arrogant Progressive horseshit. So much patronising sneering.

A change I do detect is that they seem to be adapting a siege mentality.

As the western world awakens from its disastrous engagement with Progressivism, the kind of people who can be found frequenting ideological rust buckets like Public Address are going to be under a lot of political pressure. They can’t argue, so they withdraw to the bunkers.

The amount of scorn they heap on the Tea Party movement and Glenn Beck is atrocious. If they only took the time to listen to the other side, they might find something there that could change their thinking. But they won’t dare. The arrogance is ingrained and they can’t help themselves.

As the scorpion said to the frog after he had stung him while the frog was carrying him across the river, (thereby condemning them both to death) – “Its my nature”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 9:02pm
andrei

Those against climate change are a small minority.
Not so this is a classic example of the Goebbels maxim tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth

And of those most aren’t scientific researchers.
What makes someone a scientific research? This is an example of language redefinition – many of these researchers are indeed scientists, what the shouters will say is they are not “climate scientists” ie not in the priesthood which through chinese whispers becomes they are ill informed amateurs.

Still if you want to be led like a sheep to slaughter by agenda driven junk science what can I do or anybody else do?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 9:07pm
Pete George

This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office.

Other sources say it could even be the third warmest.

The last ten years have been in the top 15 warmest on record. And this summer the UK enjoyed temperatures higher than the long-term average.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8377128.stm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 9:10pm
Pete George

If they only took the time to listen to the other side, they might find something there that could change their thinking. But they won’t dare. The arrogance is ingrained and they can’t help themselves.

Haha, you’re doing it again.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 9:13pm
andrei

That wouldn’t happen to be the same Met Office that forecast a “barbecue Summer” for the last English summer only to have it turn out to be one of the coldest and wettest on record would it Pete?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 9:16pm
Pete George

You didn’t read the article did you.

Although the Met Office was pilloried after forecasting a “barbecue summer”, it was their rainfall forecast, not the projected temperatures, that was wrong.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 9:18pm
Hurf Durf

The Met Office can’t even get the next day’s forecast right.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 9:22pm
philu

“..It makes my skin crawl to read it…”

could we see a vid of that..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 9:35pm
reid

“Reid – do you realise the link you posted is demanding that Israel hold onto all the territories?”

Read more about what that person says Tim, before you draw hasty conclusions from incomplete information.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 9:55pm
gravedodger

met service could make a quantum leap in accuracy sometimes by just going outside with a wet finger and their eyes open.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 10:10pm
Hurf Durf

I know it’s been said before but, damn, it’s nice to have phool and Puke and the moderate centre left silenced. Is there a RIP for reality? I’d even be happy with a mute button.

Enjoy having a thumbs up surplus from now on, guys! Looks like you will be able to hide the decline!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 10:13pm
Chicken Little

Poor Pete, I’m really starting to feel sorry for you now, South Island and all…….

Have you looked at the emails Pete?

How about the 100’s of documents?

Be honest.

If you haven’t maybe you should just zip it on this subject for a few days and let things play. You seem like a reasonably decent chap so I’m just giving you a heads up, take it or leave it.

The emails are personally damaging to the top 5 or 6 ‘Climate Scientists’ in the world. From what some pretty smart people are saying the documents section is going to go a lot wider than that.

This is just CRU. I’m sure they’ll be inundated with FOI requests in the next few weeks not only confirming these emails and documents are genuine but also requests for the many gems referred to in the documents. Do you think Professor Jones will be trying to play games this time?

Then NASA, NOAA and all the other major players will be getting similar requests in their respective countries. I don’t think these agencies will risk playing games either.

I’m sure there will be some OIA’s filed to NIWA tomorrow too. In fact it looks as though NZ is going to be used to try and reverse engineer the ‘adjustments’ that these ‘scientists’ have been using to inflate temperatures. Someone pointed out that NIWA may have been adjusting the temps and then CRU was as well.

All in all Pete, the science behind this stuff isn’t looking too crash hot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 10:19pm
Luc Hansen

Hurf, I’m still waiting for your explanation of the “moderate centre left.”

And I fail to see how I have been silenced. Kiwiblog is not ranked a top blog for the number of contributors, but for its visitors. Personally, I think they mainly come to watch a freak show, as I did for quite a while before I decided that the odd sane person here needed support.

And your idea of RIP for reality is just so apt, for you. Perfect, in fact. You don’t seem to live in it! 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 10:24pm
getstaffed

Careful Chicken… Pete will claim your on some payroll and have been given a ‘playbook’ if you keep up like that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 10:29pm
getstaffed

The next time someone whimpers ‘taken out of context’ in a lame attempt to discredit these emails, mention that a good number of them combine to describe an entire story in simple, chronological detail. An example is here – Willis Eschenbach’s account of his FOI request.

by stevemcinty
Willis Eschenbach’s account of his FOI request has been published on other blogs (e.g. here ) but I’m re-publishing it because Willis actually sent it to me first and the events all played out and were documented in real time at Climate Audit (see here for posts on FOI). After pursuing matters until April 2007, Willis gave up. The next part of the story started again in June 2009 when I decided to try again for the station data, this time initially requesting station data received by the Hadley Center (on the basis that they might not be able to assert exemptions claimed by Hadley Center. ) This, of course, led to an interesting sequence of events last summer, resulting in the present situation.

In the Climategate Letters, early on, Phil Jones expressed his worry that McKitrick and I might discover this legislation. In fact, it was Willis who discovered that the applicability of the legislation. Thus, his story below. This is one perspective and an interesting one.

Note that the story picks up in Para 3 with Eschenbach’s commentary.

The science isn’t settled. It was never science to start with.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 10:47pm
Hurf Durf

How can you “settle” science? Is that what they said when the Origin of the Species was published? Is that what they said when the germ theory was suggested?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 10:53pm
Luc Hansen

Yes, getstaffed, but this is about bad behaviour, not science.

The science stands, but your mind is closed, just as it is with your particular invention of a god.

I repeat, ad nauseum, 192 countries sending delegations to Copenhagen.

Feel the echo in the chamber whence you dwell.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 10:56pm
pentwig

Pete George
“Those against climate change are a small minority.”

Says who?

My interpretation of sifting through blogs around the world is that the warmers are a minority and delusional, and the antis’ are the realists.

Prove your inane comment!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 10:58pm
Chicken Little

Funny you should say that getstaffed –

From – uea-tyndall-shell.doc

Mick Kelly and Aeree Kim (CRU, ENV) met with Robert Kleiburg (Shell International’s climate change team) on July 4th primarily to discuss access to Shell information as part of Aeree’s PhD study (our initiative) and broader collaboration through postgrad. student project placements (their initiative), but Robert was also interested in plans for the Tyndall Centre (TC). What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.

1.Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.

Kinda puts all that ‘in the pay of big oil’ into focus, don’t it?

Luc – not sure why but whenever I read your…..um….comments I keep thinking of a great comment by JC over at the Dimpost the other day. Went something like –

I’m confused

Who are the Deniers?

Seems to sum you up to me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:06pm
getstaffed

The science stands

Science itself might stand, but the process followed, to form the very basis of our accepted understanding of climate change, wasn’t science. It was a sham.

Consider proper scientific method:

One of the foundational components of the scientific method is the idea of reproducibility (Popper 1959). In order for an experiment to be considered valid it must be replicated. This process begins with the scientists who originally performed the experiment publishing the details of the experiment.

This description of the experiment is then read by another group of scientists who carry out the experiment, and ascertain whether the results of the new experiment are similar to the original experiment. If the results are similar enough then the experiment has been replicated. This process validates the fact that the experiment was not dependent on local conditions, and that the written description of the experiment satisfactorily records the knowledge gained through the experiment. From Rand and Wilensky 2006

The Jones et al perversion of the peer review process is an unethical disgrace, and calls in to question the reliability of all previous research published by these guys.

Full inquiry now. And a criminal investigation into FOI actions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:07pm
reid

Luc, using majority opinion to justify your argument is always a bit dicey: e.g.

most people in the West thought the Iraq invasion was a great idea cause apparently, Saddam had WMDs

most people in 1930’s Britain believed everything was just hunky dory

I could go on and on but that would be boring, wouldn’t it.

How about trying something different, like admitting there are legitimate questions still to be answered, or is that simply heresy?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:16pm
getstaffed

Those against climate change are a small minority

Perhaps read each of these 450 PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS SUPPORTING SKEPTICISM OF AGW and then re-consider. On second thoughts don’t bother. Just try to discredit the source. Or question my motives. More your style.

I wonder how many of the pro AGW papers have their heritage in ‘data’ and/or ‘findings’ of these fraudsters at the CRU? Quite a few I should expect. It would make for an interesting dependency analysis.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:19pm
Hurf Durf

Most people think the anti-smacking bill is a crock of shit. According to Luc logic, we should scrap the whole thing because the people are on the side of it. Yes, I like that logic.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:20pm
Luc Hansen

reid, you are wrong, on two counts, at least.

Most people in the west -OUTSIDE THE USA – thought invading Iraq was a very bad idea. Don’t you remember the huge demos throughout the western world (I went on one).

We are not talking here about a general majority, we are talking an overwhelming majority of experts. And this majority is being swamped by fuckwits who think reading a few articles by conspiracy theorists makes them experts in climate change.

Sorry mate, I know we agree on lots, but this is too serious to wallow in egalitarianism.

Think of it like this: your heart surgeon says you need a transplant; are you going to hit the streets and take a vox pop?!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:24pm
Luc Hansen

Hurf, the problem with the referendum is this: no-one asked the children if they wanted to be hit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:32pm
pentwig

Luc

“We are not talking here about a general majority, we are talking an overwhelming majority of experts.”

What a load of shit!!

What the hell is an overwhelming majority of experts? What makes them so? Who proves they are experts? What makes their opinion more acceptable than the general majority?

You are getting as bad as the phool!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:38pm
Chicken Little

Fuckwits? Conspiracy Theorists?

I’m feeling a little aggression from you here Luc. Hope you’re not like that around the baby.

You realise these are emails and documents written by the experts in Climate Change, right?

It’s in their own words.

My personal favourite is Ian ‘Harry’ Harris referring to the master dataset that this entire AWG thing is built on as ‘completely useless’.

You should read through them Luc, you might find a personal favourite too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:44pm
Luc Hansen

What the hell is an overwhelming majority of experts?

Over 80% of climate scientists accept the proof of AGW.

What makes their opinion more acceptable than the general majority?

Years of learning and experience.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:47pm
Hurf Durf

Hope you’re not like that around the baby.

Count on it. His first kid is a fuck-up by his own admission, no doubt the leftist thought that twisted Luc’s mind ended up destroying Luc Junior 1. Hopefully Luc Junior 2 realises this quickly and gets out early.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:51pm
Luc Hansen

And Chicken, if you do a little research you will find that those emails are out of context and misinterpreted.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 26, 2009 11:59pm
pentwig

Luc

Where is the proof 80% of climate scientists accept AGW?
And do not source ICC they are now proven corrupt.

Your years of learning and experience has made you delusional.

How old are again?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:00am
valeriusterminus

Hey Inventory2
Why should you take thrill from the efforts of Bond?
WTF has it got to do with you? yeah “basker in the glory light of others’ achievements”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:00am
Hurf Durf

Luc has hundredz of lerning. He read a book by George Monbiot about it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:04am
Luc Hansen

Hurf, you have been good till now. Too many drinkies? 🙂

Actually, my baby is, including 2 stepchildren I have raised from a tender age, Junior No 5.

And they all love me still, even the ones whose Mums are no longer my wife. 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:07am
Chicken Little

Have you read the emails Luc?

How about the documents? Are they out of context?

The quote from ‘Harry’ is from HARRY_READ_ME (which I think will become the most famous computer file ever in the next few months). Harry is the guy trying to sort out the Dataset and modeling software. ‘Harry’ has a Phd and is an expert Climate Scientist. Poor ‘Harry’ thinks the dataset is ‘completely useless’. ‘Harry’ also notes in this document how he has been ordered to insert made up data to get closer to the model. I shit you not.

Maybe you need to do a little more research Luc

The full file is up on multiple torrents. Have look for yourself. Have a look at the entire email strings and see if they’re out of context. Have a look in the docs at HARRY_READ_ME. Go on I dare ya.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:10am
Luc Hansen

Jeez pentwig, it’s a bit late to dig it up again, but it was a worldwide survey by the University of Illinois, from memory.

As for how old I am, maybe you should ask my 14mth old daughter.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:11am
Luc Hansen

pentwig, here you go…

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:14am
valeriusterminus

Hurf and Luc
I caution our talents, in which light we respectfully bask – “colours – pole – too soon” Ideals are the end, and by a sleep to say!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:19am
Luc Hansen

and here’s an extract:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate
among scientists

QED
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:19am
Chicken Little

Luc have you read any of the emails?

Have you read any of the documents?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:22am
Hurf Durf

I understand the nuance of deleting emails to prevent them being released under a Freedom of Information request.

“waaaaaaaaaah all dey wont to do iz poke holes in it,” yeah, testing your theory is sort of the point. Eco-socialists yelling THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED is hardly that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:24am
Luc Hansen

chicken

yes.

Hurf

that was naughty of them. But that’s not about the science, it’s about paranoia. There is a difference.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:33am
Chicken Little

Yes what?

You’ve read the emails? How are they used out of context then? Please explain. Just cite the email # you’re talking about and we’ll have a look at it, OK?

You’ve read the documents? What did you think of HARRY_READ_ME. Devastating isn’t it? Shows conclusively, in their own words, that they made the data fit the ‘models’. Is that how you think science should work?

Anyway, the kids will be up a 6am so I better try and get a bit of shuteye.

I think I’ll make you my ‘special’ friend Luc, you seem so smart and all.

Talk to you tomorrow Luc ;0
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:44am
pentwig

Luc
However, attempts to quantify
the scientific consensus on anthropogenic
warming have met with criticism.
For instance, Oreskes [2004] reviewed 928
abstracts from peer-reviewed
research
papers and found that more than 75%
either explicitly or implicitly accepted
the consensus view that Earth’s climate
is being affected by human activities.
Yet Oreskes’s approach has been criticized
for overstating the level of consensus
acceptance within the examined
abstracts [Peiser, 2005] and for not capturing
the full diversity of scientific opinion
[Pielke, 2005]. A review of previous
attempts at quantifying the consensus and
criticisms is provided by Kendall Zimmerman
[2008]. The objective of our study
presented here is to assess the scientific
consensus on climate change through
an unbiased survey of a large and broad
group of Earth scientists.
An invitation to participate in the survey
was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.

So the paper you was contentuous and only sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.

Looking at the fraud now discovered who can believe that crap?
It was obviously slanted from the start.
The whole credibility of climate change is now in doubt.
Let the unbiased data flow!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:46am
valeriusterminus

I downloaded the 63MB from wikileaks and saw the £5M grant to the Rus for the field trips. Then I saw the claim of credibility because the Rus corroborated – hence the Raw deletions did not matter.
Then I realised that this was big.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 12:46am
sbk

“But that’s not about the science, it’s about paranoia. There is a difference.”…exactly Luc its not about science..its about the climate scientists creating an atmosphere of fear..thats the difference..dont forget these emails and documents were not from just “scientists” but from the “leading climate scientists” who essentially defined the paradigm(AGW),and as a we all know some of the greatest scientitific discoveries have come from scientists who have challanged the accepted paradigm..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 5:41am
Tassman

With the removal of the provocation defence, now you can bully all you like because your victims will be prosecuted should they react!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 6:11am
Viking2

So, we now have a law that disallows anyone from defending themselves in court against any changes where they have been provoked beyond their mental capacity to cope with any abuse, mental or physical.
The only MP’s to oppose the removal of the defense of provocation were the ACT MP’s.
The rest of the slimeballs colluded to usurp hundreds of years of legal argument that forms the case history of law. A totally predictable, emotional reaction to one high profile murder.
Appalling but not surprising.
Apparently it was to save the gays and women according to Charles Chauvell.

Provocation defense gone

Friday, 27, Nov, 2009 12:01AM

The partial defense of provocation can no longer be used in court.

MPs, sitting under urgency, have passed the Crimes Provocation Repeal Amendment Bill into law by 116 votes to five.

ACT was the only party to vote against the law change.

Labour’s Charles Chauvel told ACT’s MPs that opposing the bill was an insult to the victims of violent crime. Mr Chauvel said they should be ashamed for sanctioning a defense that legitimizes violence against gay men and against women.

Where was Findlayson who is supposed to stand up for the integrity of the law making process. He should resign forthwith as should all the other lawyers that sit in that house and supported this legislation. Appalling.

Before you all beat me up, no women or man that is driven to that point by another individual now has any defense no matter how heinous the provocation. Think about that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 6:31am
expat

valeriusterminus,

can you elaborate on your earlier post please? whats Rus and the corroboration?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 6:35am
Pete George

getstaffed at 11:19 pm

Perhaps read each of these 450 PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS SUPPORTING SKEPTICISM OF AGW

Skepticism of AGW and climate change is healthy. How many peer reviewed papers are there in total on the topic?

If Anthony Watt is having is having a balanced look at it he will have surely collated them too? But that’s not likely, the policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute is Monckton, and the institute financed the film Apocalypse No. So this is more likely to be one sided.

“While the SPPI seems primarily to be the work of Robert Ferguson, it also features on it website the work of other prominent climate change skeptics who are involved with one or more other anti-Kyoto treaty groups.”

And yes, the source is important, it puts the balance (or imbalance) into context.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 6:47am
Viking2

Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party supported the repeal bill and there were cries of “shame” when Act MP David Garrett said his party opposed it.
Alternate Ad Image Text Goes Here!

Mr Garrett said the central point in the Weatherston case was that the defence failed.

“Abolishing it suggests we don’t trust juries,” he said.

The repeal shifted the argument of provocation from juries to judges, who can consider it in sentencing.

“It makes more sense to put our trust in juries,” he said.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 6:49am
Pete George

450 PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS SUPPORTING SKEPTICISM OF AGW

let’s just look at the first 10. 1. Nothing skeptical about AGW in Loehle’s article. Not one word. 2. is a correction to 1. Double-counting 3. Opinion piece by Balling in the AAPG’s journal. Not peer-reviewed. 4. First real peer-reviewed paper. Considering the authors, expect major flaws. 5. Article in 2000 from E&E. NOT peer-reviewed. 6. Not ‘skeptical’ of AGW in the WUWT-sense. 7. Commentary of Boehmer-Christiansen. Peer-reviewed? Doubtful 8. Valid entry number 2. 9. LOL. Comment on comment to paper #8. In a sense double counting, and those comments are usually not peer-reviewed 10. Even more LO. Correction to paper #8. Triple counting!

Interesting, isn’t it? In the first 10 already so many problems. Also interesting: They refer to Zeebe et al, which isn’t even close to critical of AGW. It only notes that with the accepted climate sensitivity to CO2, there wasn’t enough CO2 to explain the observed temperature increase during the PETM. In other words, it argues that other forcings must have been present, or the climate sensitivity to CO2 is LARGER than currently accepted…

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.php#comment-2076797
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 6:55am

More comments:

‹
1
2
3

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« About Iran

Another MP landlord and tenant »

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

Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"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
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Utopia
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