About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

November 27, 2009 6:43am by David Farrar

General Debate 27 November 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment164

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (164)

Login to comment or vote

Hurf Durf

It’s rather like when scientology got blown wide open and the story of Xenu and people flying to earth in Boeing 787s. Only now, the Warmists have had their cult blown open and it was all smoke, mirrors and dodgy data.

I wonder how the government will sell us whatever bullshit they cook up in Copenhagen, thanks to the dastardly internet and their email releases.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 1:30pm
Chicken Little

Luc, my little friend – I repeat – REAL CLIMATE HAVE TURNED THEIR COMMENTS OFF – I WONDER WHY?

Sheeeesh, like trying to bath a cat.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 1:37pm
Pete George

Reid, that’s not a review, it’s a promotion:
Planet Earth’s climate, indifferent to puny human interventions, will simply continue on its majestic way – irrespective of ministrations that we might or might not attempt. Watch this film, and use the knowledge that you will gain to lobby your Senator to vote against the Australian emissions trading bill.

And it’s a bit late.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 1:41pm
Luc Hansen

George Monbiot’s name has been thrown around here as one who has supposedly joined the camp of the deniers because of the emails. In fact, this is his take here:

(Quote) It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed…(end of quote)

The remainder of the post is a giant pisstake at the expense of the conspiracy theorists.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 1:41pm
Chicken Little

Here’s an email for you LUC – produced in full of course, we can’t have things taken out of context, can we?

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go
there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d
like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone…

mike

RC = Real Climate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 1:45pm
Hurf Durf

If the moderate centre left and Puke wail in a General Debate, but RIP made no one hear it, did they actually wail?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 1:45pm
philu

and gee hurf..

how would you know..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 1:56pm
pentwig

Yvette

Phillip Ure (the phool) said “i actually know not enough about the specifics/detail to make any comment ..”
on Kiwiblog on 24/11/09 in GD re GW..”

So the idiot admits to know nothing about AGW but still keeps up his attempts to get hits on his blogsite via kiwiblog commenters.

Being right wing meat eating intelligent people, we are far too wise for him.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:07pm
Pete George

Being right wing meat eating intelligent people, we are far too wise for him.

And so modest and unconceited.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:12pm
Chthoniid

Being right wing meat eating intelligent people, we are far too wise for him.

Not a hard achievement however, as I believe that small micro-organisms living in the eternal dark of the bottom of the world’s oceans are also wiser and more knowledgeable than Phool.

What happened to the Colonel Master’s resolution of the 23rd of starving Phool of attention btw? There was actually some good adherence to that for a few days.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:18pm
philu

“..Phillip Ure (the phool) said “i actually know not enough about the specifics/detail to make any comment ..”
on Kiwiblog on 24/11/09 in GD re GW..”..”

pentwig repeats this total lie..

my response was to being asked to comment on the content of the leaked emails..

does being rightwing means you just make shit up..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:19pm
philu

yeah..!..piss off back there..!..clintoiid..

(what do you call a collection/gathering of knuckle-dragging trolls..?

a ‘gulch’..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:22pm
pentwig

phool

You disappoint me. You promised to ignore me because you consider me a moron.

Keep your promises!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:24pm
Fletch

Luc, I have yet to read ANYTHING the convinces me about man-made global warming; what convinced you?

What makes us skeptical (for one) is all the lying by those involved with trying to prove warming – the submitted papers based on data – that once checked – turns out to be untrue when rechecked by peers; not the least of which the infamous manufactured ‘hockey stick’ graph by Mann et al. Also the many ‘facts’ now proved to be inaccurate in Al Gore’s movie.

If there was serious data to support the claim, and a willingness for data to be earnestly reviewed and shared – a transparent cooperation between those coming at the issue from both sides and funding given to whoever genuinely wanted to research the issue (rather than just grants to those who are believers in warming to start with) I would be more likely to believe. Instead the warming believers seem to be mounting a ‘believe us or else’ war, where the opinion of ‘deniers’ (that’s a charged word right there) is flagged aside and scoffed at.

In my opinion, real world samples that describe the geological history of our planet tell a story – a story that cannot be matched by a computer simulation that is already proving unreliable.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:26pm
philu

pentwig..

you just repeated a fucken lie you have used before..

(and that i corrected you on..to that same ‘nyah..nyah..reaction from you..

trying to confirm for everyone just what a mindless/braindead simpleton you are..?

mission accomplished..!

dumb as dogs balls..and a moron with it..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:42pm
pentwig

phool

oh boo hoo
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:45pm
side show bob

Are the National socialists now gulping down hand fulls of retard pills?. Why remove the defence of provocation?. Are they worried that if they provoke us enough we might do something silly?. Perhaps they fear the worm has turned, I do hope so.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:45pm
philu

is the manawatu river partly your doing..?

bloody-hands-bob..?

or do you pollute a lesser-tributary..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 2:51pm
side show bob

Buzzzzzzzzz. Sorry, wrong again phool. I suspect those that rated the Manawatu River as one of the most polluted in the world obtained their figures from the CRU. Probably one of those cases where if you put the cash down you get the result you desire. Perhaps you should also consider the possibility that the vast amount of pollution comes from a city, shock, horror, not the evil farmers fault, dropkick.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:01pm
Hurf Durf

I’m thinking we should investigate NIWA for taking Greenpeace money.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:06pm
philu

oh ..!..!

so it’s those fucken jafas..!..again..!..eh..?

they are the ones who have polluted over 90% of our waterways..eh..?

who knew their reach was so long..?

and the farmers..?

‘blameless’..again/still..eh..?

d’yareckon any readers here are gullible enough to swallow that pile of cowshit..?..there..?

bloody-hands-bob..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:11pm
philu

anyone else noticed that dubai is showing signs of going down the gurgler..

what everyone thought was built on a sea of oil..

was actually built on a sea of (now unpayable) debt..

black friday on wall st should be interesting..

eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:15pm
Luc Hansen

Chicken Little

I have posted on this previously here, but again this is the Real Climate reply to queries on this email:

44. One purported email says:

“guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…”

I’m not a sceptic (far from it…I’ve been involved in climate science for a long time and have been convinced about AGW for years) but I do think that this sends a pretty crap message to everyone. If RC is screening posts to push a particular point then it’s not that much better in that regard than a lot of the sceptic sites.

[Response: This is a moderated site, and always has been. We do screen out a lot of the random squawk of the blogosphere and the baseless accusations of malfeasance that are commonplace on open forums. We do that unapologetically in order to maximise the signal-to-noise ratio in threads. When there are technical issues that we aren’t qualified to judge, we often ask people more involved to comment – and these comments appear inline with the questions so that the answers are not lost and are provided at the same time as the question appears. This leaves a record for later readers that is much easier to follow. We don’t screen out comments just because they disagree with us (as is evident in any comment thread). – gavin]

Comment by san quintin — 20 November 2009 @ 2:01 PM

And here is another one that has been causing a ruckus:

26. The email which describe the peer review process, leaning on editors, etc. has done much to discredit science as a whole. I have reviewed papers. What I see in those emails is very disappointing.

[Response: The paper and journal in question were indeed a scandal. But the scandal was that it was ever published. Six editors of the journal resigned in protest at the publication, not because of pressure. – gavin]

So far a total of 1854 comments have been posted on the website, many highly critical, and many replied to by Real climate employees, mainly Gavin Schmidt.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:37pm
KiwiGreg

Yes Air New Zealand is acting as if they own Erebus.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:40pm
MyNameIsJack

The Catholic Church in Ireland covered up widespread allegations of “evil” child sex abuse by priests for decades, according to a damning report released today.

Four archbishops routinely protected abusers and failed to inform police of the allegations, according to a three-year investigation into the Dublin Archdiocese, the country’s largest.

The judicial probe discovered that the archbishops did not report abuse to police until the 1990s as part of a culture of secrecy and an over-riding wish to avoid damaging the reputation of the Church.

The report said: “All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities.”

http://www.theage.com.au/world/sex-abuse-report-shames-irish-catholic-church-20091127-jv1g.html

If you’re a catholic, you should hang your head in shame.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:42pm
KiwiGreg

@ Luc – how do you regard either of those comments as “responses”. The first one basically says we edit out the unbelievers and the second says the published paper was crap. Neither comment even tries to rebut the inference that a reasonable person would draw from the offending emails. To me they reinforce the view of the missionary zeal with whcih the warmists attack the unbelievers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:43pm
side show bob

God you are desperate Luc. At what stage in your pitiful life will you take off your blinkers. For fucks sake do you think if this issue was put to a jury could you honestly say AGW would escape the firing squad. What does it take to get through to you dickheads that you have been had. Failing that I have a nice little drawbridge in London I’m trying to flock off, would you be interested.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:49pm
Pete George

If you’re a catholic, you should hang your head in shame.

If you are involved in this then shame. It has been horrific in Ireland, but that’s not here. Not all Catholics are responsible.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:50pm
side show bob

Brilliant MNIJ, what a great analogy. The Irish Catholic church and AGW believers like Luc.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:55pm
Pete George

ssbob, doing a victory lap now is way way premature. There are a lot of scientists and a lot of science unaffected or partially affected by CRU.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:55pm
stephen

The first one basically says we edit out the unbelievers

You never wondered why there are never any posts there along the lines of ‘WHy are you trying to destroy my country you and you neo-communist overlords should go ak to the URSR you BASTARDS!!!’? You also seem to think that no comments go through which question the posts on the site, for some reason.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 3:58pm
Pete George

Nasa scientists have produced the most compelling evidence yet that bacterial life exists on Mars.

It showed that microscopic worm-like structures found in a Martian meteorite that hit the Earth 13,000 years ago are almost certainly fossilised bacteria.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6934078.ece

So that is where men originated from. I wonder if they can prove where women came from yet?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 4:09pm
Elijah Lineberry

The Constabulary are not intending to charge Richard Worth with any crime according to the NZ Herald website.

Does this mean he is ‘innocent’? 😛

http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 4:13pm
Andrew W

I posted a comment on RC once that was directed at Gavin, it took ages to appear, but when it did, it did so with Gavin’s reply.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 4:18pm
Buggerlugs

Journalists, printers and sales staff at the Southland Times are striking today in protest at Fairfax’s refusal to offer a wage increase, and will join thousands of low paid public sector workers in their nationwide day of action against the pay freeze.

Two things: since when were journalists public sector workers, and b) that should improve the quality of the Southland Times no end tomorrow.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 4:34pm
Pete George

Don’t despair yet, the southerly is blowing in with light rain heading for the University Oval now. It might rescue us for a while.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 4:40pm
Luc Hansen

Fletch, you asked: Luc, I have yet to read ANYTHING the convinces me about man-made global warming; what convinced you?

That’s a fair question and I will answer as best I can. Until about 4 years ago, when I met my wife, I was a skeptic, but not a denialist – I just didn’t know but it all seemed a bit far fetched. But my wife got into my ear and asked me, what if they are right? That made me think, and I listened to the scientists, mainly in the MSM, and opened my mind to the possibility. I checked up on Bjorn Lomberg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, reputed to be a skeptic but, in fact, actually not. His main argument is for technological innovation rather than carbon taxes etc.

But the turning point was coming to Kiwiblog. The skeptic arguments were just so vociferous, filled with ad hominems – usually a give away for a bad argument – that I felt compelled to see if they were right or not. They supplied all the links to organisations I had never heard of, primarily the IPCC and Real Climate. I used these sites, and NIWA and NASA and many others that I came across in my journey, checking out the FAQ’s, most common myths etc etc, assiduously researched arguments presented here by the skeptics and denialists and conspiracy theorists and ended up totally convinced that AGW is real, it’s here and it’s a major problem.

I understand how the uncertainties arise, and think that trying to hide them is wrong, but the broad brush painted by, as George Monbiot says, hundreds of lines of scientific enquiry, is simply too compelling to be denied. That’s my honest opinion.

Four years ago I was single, hedonistic, and not too concerned with the future. My circumstances have changed and I want to do what I can to ensure we don’t wreak havoc on our planet for future generations.

Fletch, I trust this answers your question, and thank you for asking.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 5:22pm
reid

Luc, why do you think the issue is valid when:

Science:
(a) it ignores evidence from geological record showing that temp fluctuations are natural
(b) it ignores the possibility that the sun is a major contributor to those cycles
(c) it ignores evidence that suggests that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas

Propaganda (If it looks like a duck, etc.):
(d) uses classic propaganda techniques: e.g. immediately adopted the emotive label for dissenters as “deniers” (an extreme and loaded label used elsewhere the application and penalty of which is an unequivocal declaration that dissent won’t be tolerated and your career is at risk if you work in the relevant field – history or in this case, science)

Politics:
(e) the debate came from nowhere to global calamity in less than 5 years with lock-step cross-party precision – name another
(f) it entails the biggest wealth-transfer in history
(g) warmaholic science receives biased degrees of govt funding and growing disparity as we speak – name a major govt-funded “denier” institute

I mean, who knows, but it sure as hell looks like a duck, and every day that goes by reinforces that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 5:43pm
malcolm

The liberal bias in Wikipedia is oppressively odious these days.

Item 3] on Conservapedia’s list of “Examples of Bias in Wikipedia”:

Wikipedia’s article on engineering[2] features a photo of … an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient liberal boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the United States because they are not competitive.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Getstaffed, I’m sure you don’t take Conservapedia seriously, but can you give an example of what you speak of? Not on something totally subjective like a US talkshow host or on climate change (as neither of us has any first-hand or professional knowledge on that subject).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 5:54pm
Chicken Little

Luc – Go have a look at their archives and see how many threads have contrary opinions.

The point is – Owners of Real Climate –

Gavin Schmidt (NASA) and Micheal Mann (Uni of Penn, Hockey Stick)

Do you see that they may have a wee conflict of interest?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 5:57pm
malcolm

I just checked the “Engineering” article on Wikipedia. It still has a picture of an off-shore wind-turbine. Shockingly it also has a picture of Leonardo da Vinci; a well known homosexualist and certainly not an American.

Shameless liberals.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 6:06pm
malcolm

An interesting discussion between Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia founder) and Robert Cox (Conservative blogger) on the subject of political bias in Wikipedia:

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email-debatewales-discusses-political-bias-on-wikipedia111.html

Very interesting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 6:17pm
DJP6-25

Redbaiter 8.15 am. Most of these ‘journalists’, and repeaters have a litmus test for their stories. Will it advance the cause of Socialisim, or won’t it? Once that’s figured out, they act accordingly.

cheers

David Prosser
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 7:02pm
Andrew W

Reid,
(a) AGW recognises that there are natural climate fluctuation.
(b) Solar forcing is recognised as a forcing and included.
(c) I’d love to see your evidence that CO2 is not a Greenhouse gas.
(d) Meaningless, AGW supporters think that the denialists/deniers base their rejection of the possibility of AGW being real on factors other than an objective assessment of the science. For that reason “sceptic” is not an appropriate term to use to describe them.
(e) That comment suggests you believe it’s an orchestrated conspiracy. A view that speaks for itself.
(f) What’s that got to do with it? Assuming that’s actually true.
(g) You’re starting off with the assumption that this is some sort of them vs us battle, there are no institutions funded by governments to prove AGW exists, rather the institutions are funded to study possible climate change that’s the result of anthropogenic factors, after studying the science, most institutions, and individuals in those institutions have concluded that AGW is occurring.

It looks like a duck to you because you want it to be a duck, I hope you’re not a deer hunter, because I sure wouldn’t want to be in the same forest.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 7:04pm
reid

AndrewW,
(a) no, it doesn’t, across geologic time records
(b) no, it doesn’t and isn’t
(c) I’d love to see your unequivocal evidence it is, for your side depends on it
(d) spoken like a true believer (you weren’t a member of the CPSU were you, for that’s the same tactic)
(e) but it’s a fact, isn’t it?
(f) it is true, but as per usual, naive believers haven’t bothered to familiarise themselves with the actual real consequences
(g) it is an us vs them, apparently you’re on the side of them, thanks for identifying yourself, forgive me if I ignore future contributions on this subject from you for I now know where to place them
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 7:30pm
jackp

Did anyone see Closup tonight? An architect Richard Gage (sp) was on talking about the 911 and how the twin towers and #7 came down by controlled explosives. He was certain the planes did not bring the towers down but they were only a diversion. Infact he didn’t call it a conspiracy because conspiracy means theory, shit, he just said they came down by explosives. This was on tv tonight. Hope some of you out there calling us nutcases and crackpots saw this especially #7. When I saw that go down, that is what created the doubt in my mind that it involved terrorist. Richard Gage is asking to reopen the investigation. . Going on public tv and saying this is terrific news but I am worried because if this build momentum, his life will be in danger. It takes guts to say this publicly
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 7:32pm
reid

jackp, yes I did, and I’m disappointed Gage choked on the critical moment, when he could have done a slam dunk, and shown the subset of Close Up viewers with intelligence (who aren’t many these days thanks to the fact Sainsbury usually fronts it), there are in fact, important unanswered questions.

It will be just another lost opportunity, but good on you Richard, for having the guts and the patriotism to raise questions about the giant holes that exist in the official 911 smokescreen that only useful idiots who are thicker than a whale omelet could possibli believe.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 7:46pm
Viking2

A wink is as good as a nod when it comes to accessing funding. I need, you nod and I supply the funding to support your research into my proposition.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 7:58pm
MikeNZ

MNIJ
I’ll believe it when all those in the Catholic church all over the world who did the same (incl in NZ) and hid/obfusecated and denied what they knew went on, get put before the courts.
I know of one case here in WTN where the bishop moved a guy to another parish and didn’t tell anyone what he’d done and he did the same to a mate of mines son.
The Bishop should be doing 10 yrs inside and the Cardinal instead they made my mates family go through hell for causing trouble.
The Catholic church in NZ is a disgrace to society and has no right to speak on social or moral matters until they hand over the f@ckers who hid it all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 7:59pm
kaya

Well if Lindsay Freer, Catholic communication coordinator, is any example of the Catholic church here in NZ then the whole lot need to sort their shit out. She is the fruit loop who threw a wobbly over the South Park episode with the menstruating statue of the virgin Mary.

http://tinyurl.com/yj3tmg2

She had obviously never watched an episode of the programme in her life. As much as it is crude at times, at the end of every episode of South Park there is always a positive moral to the story. Usually about prejudice, bigotry, discrimination etc. The Catholic Church, like many others are hypocrites.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 8:47pm
kaya

KiwiGreg – you reckon the recession is over? Dubai is looking pretty dodgy and nobody seems to know who has exposure to it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10612008

The next 4 or 5 days should be interesting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 8:58pm
Luc Hansen

reid said to AndrewW

it is an us vs them, apparently you’re on the side of them, thanks for identifying yourself, forgive me if I ignore future contributions on this subject from you for I now know where to place them

good idea reid. Can you do the same for me?

Cheers 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 9:15pm
Luc Hansen

Kaya said:

The Catholic Church, like many others are hypocrites.

Kaya, ALL churches are hypocrites.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 9:17pm
jackp

Reid, at least it is a start. This is truly the first time I heard anyone come out like that and explain things. Of course, your right, too many people don’t think to ask questions that might lead to something frightening. Especially in the states. They don’t’ have a clue what is going on. If they started asking questions then that would lead to more questions. I think you get the picture.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 9:25pm
kaya

Yes, yes, the recession is over, which is why privately owned finance companies are taking advantage of taxpayers money offered to them by Key. Cheers John, just what I voted for you to do, increase my family debt levels. What happened to capitalism? Where did this bullshit “no fail because we’ll just take it off the taxpayer and give it to private businesses” system come from? What a joke.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10611916
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 9:52pm
Hurf Durf

The Keynesian assholes have been rehabilitated after thirty years in exile in the backwoods. That’s what’s happened, kaya.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 9:55pm
Luc Hansen

assholes…backwoods…hmmm

Hurf, where are you from? Deliverance territory?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 10:02pm
reid

jackp, many millions in the States have gotten the accurate picture, thanks to the internet. But when you get journalists who pretend the questions don’t even exist and prefer to spend their time on useful things like celeb gossip, what can people like you and I do?

It’s incredible these “professionals” have abrogated their duty. Imagine any other profession doing the same.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 10:07pm
kaya

Hurf Durf – aye, I think the little cobweb-riddled, tweed jacketed fuckers will be very excited.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 10:20pm
Luc Hansen

The legal system in this country is disgraced by a reported 200 lawyers rorting the legal aid system. This is much, much worse than a couple of scientists fiddling climate change data. Nearly 200% worse, actually.

It’s quite clear that the legal system cannot be justified by rational enquiry. But getting rid of it is going to be a battle. It has friends in high places, all over the world, as do all conspiracies.

I’m going to do my bit by just pretending it isn’t there – it doesn’t exist. Call me a denier, if you will.

We will see who’s right…eventually.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 10:28pm
Hurf Durf

Just caught the headline of today’s Huruld – no doubt the bedwetters of Editing the Huruld will have been phenomenally asspained at the idea of them besmirching their beloved Liarbore leader. A pox on thee! Why aren’t you like alternet yet?!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 27, 2009 10:53pm
emmess

WTF?
9/11 Troofers get a free pass in the media but climate change skeptics are beyond the pale?
Something is seriously fucked up in this country
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 28, 2009 1:17am
KiwiGreg

“join thousands of low paid public sector workers ”

I wonder how whoever reported this determined they were low paid. Most would be on well above the average and indeed median income. And I suspect on a risk-weighted and hours actually worked basis, pretty well paid indeed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 28, 2009 8:11am
jackp

Reid, it is a loosing battle. Back in the 70’s the major government defense contractors muscled their way into the News media. I remember when General Electric was allowed by congress to buy one of the major networks. There was no internet then. Then Westinghouse, another major defense contractor bought ABC (not sure which one anymore). Then they bought out the major newspapers CNN followed suit and no longer became the rogue news station because Ted Turner got kicked out. This is what is killing the states. Dumbing down the public. You have to remember, these major defense contractors have a vested interest in wars and can sway public opinion very easily. It is done here by the EPMU. The labour unions run the news which is why they are terribly slanted and look for stories that will strengthen the union. The public doesn’t have a clue what is happening.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 28, 2009 8:44am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Jerusalem

Middle East politics »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

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

Links

Roger Partridge: Can the Dead Own Property? Our Supreme Court Just Said Yes in Nikora v Kruger
Breaking Views
"The paradox of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is that the phrase is used only by the very people who are suffering from it."
Not PC
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Dumpster Fire: White House Press Office Faced Internal Criticism Over the Rewriting of President Biden’s Garbage Comments
Utopia
SEEMS HOW EXPENSIVE DOES NOT MATTER.
No Minister
Some sporting reflections
Point of Order
American Election Predictions: It’s Apocalypse in the USA
The Daily Blog
Open mike 02/11/2024
The Standard
The High Court says "Land Back"
No Right Turn
Why you should reject the term “Christian nationalism”
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
US military-industrial-sports complex.
Kiwipolitico
MILLION DOLLAR REWARD
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 7
Stats Chat
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d