General Debate 4 November 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment174

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (174)

Login to comment or vote

Hurf Durf

Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle ..eh..?
Phil the magpie said.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:03pm
Pete George

This Richard Lindzen?

“He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.”

In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen “clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.”

Lindzen told the BBC that ExxonMobil was “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US” and that “they have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense.”

Also linked to the Heartland Institute.

Writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that “of all the skeptics, MIT’s Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he’s doing serious research on the subject.”

So of the skeptics society he does actually have some scientific credentials, but he is in a very small minority. He has discarded a number of his arguments as they have been disproven.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:05pm
philu

can’t think up yr own..eh hurf..?

does it make your head hurt..?

you are really the ‘magpie’ here..eh..?

wot with yr ‘borrowing’ others’ ideas..?..eh..?

and not even a speechmark to acknowledge that you are not the author..eh..?

people reading that would be lead to think it was your ‘wit’..eh..?

is that what you are hoping for..?

(kinda ‘shabby’ there eh hurf..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:08pm
NeillR

Wreck, the problem is the bus system itself is unsustainable given that ARTA has to massively subsidise the system just to keep it functioning. The drivers are on pretty thin ground and as others have said there are plenty of ways that they could be done out of a job.

So instead of lamely claiming they are worth ‘x’ when they plainly aren’t, the drivers should be looking at how they can ensure there is still a job for them because at the moment they are only employed because of the good grace of the tax and rate paying public.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:09pm
Pete George

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

“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.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:09pm
Hurf Durf

Shit, Phool, calm down. It’s only a running joke. Have a speedball.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:10pm
Pete George

And to provide some balance I have searched the Internet and found this:

“Sonny Blount Nov 2009 : “Look out the window”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:12pm
big bruv

The bastards have turned down an 11.5% wage rise!

Sack the lot of them and hire people who want to work.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:14pm
philu

‘always blow on the pie..!’

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:16pm
side show bob

What’s the point in links Phil, anything we put up is not to be believe or will be a load of shit in your eyes and besides why would I bother, you’re the resident link whore, God forbid I should cramp your style. Oh the cows send their love and plenty of white stuff still coming out the back end. Did you notice our pay rise the other day, bet that got up your Melon nose. Like farming is a sunset industry and all, according to the socialist suckholes. As for being “hysterical” I think you may have more to be hysterical about, has Paula been around yet?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:18pm
Sonny Blount

Pete,

Are you suggesting that the data produced by Richard Lindzen and his colleagues is incorrect Pete, can you state in what way this is so?

It doesn’t matter a rats who the person was that was doing the measurements if they are correct.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:21pm
getstaffed

Pete, a few questions

1. how many of the 3,146 scientists performed primary research on their own temperature and weather data, and how many relied on IPCC source data for their analysis? My contention is that there’s more fack in a JK Rowling novel than in the IPCC source data.

2. What was the peer-review method? Did the IPCC organise this peer review, of did scientists simply ask like-minded colleagues to review?

3. Wikipedia?!?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:24pm
Sonny Blount

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

What is this bullshit and why are you bringing it up on a scientific matter? This is not a popularity contest.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:25pm
Pete George

What particular peer reviewed research are you referring to Sonny?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:27pm
getstaffed

Pete, you’re worried about where funding comes from, questioning motives?

Extract:

Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in [to warmist climate science], and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

Um, yes I think we have.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:28pm
Sonny Blount

Certainly not the IPCC research which ignored the negative peer review feedback.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:29pm
Pete George

getstaffed, the IPCC doesn’t do data. It reviews and assesses.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:31pm
Ryan Sproull

Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in [to warmist climate science], and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

That is a bit like saying that the cigarette industry puts a fraction of money into trying to disprove the dangers of passive smoking compared to the money governments put into cancer research.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:33pm
Sonny Blount

I can’t be arsed finding all the research papers that show it as they are probably decades old but can you tell me which of the follwing you believe to be substanitally incorrect.

Co2 levels in the Cambrian period reached ~7000ppm
Temperatures in the Camrian period reached ~22 deg C
We have had several ice ages cycles in which the temperature cycled between 5 and 15 deg C
The CO2 levels followed the temp during the glacial cycles with a lag of ~800-1000 years
The average surface temp of the Earth cooled from ~1940 to ~1980
The average surface temp stopped increasing ~2000
The human output of CO2 and greenhouse gases increased from 1940-2009

As far as I am aware Richard Lindzens paper on irradiance will be published this month.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:35pm
Sonny Blount

meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement

Well that is not very convincing is it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:38pm
side show bob

Careful getstaffed you are treading dangerous ground. Questioning climate change is heresy and Pete and his mates will be around to have a little bonfire ( after they pay for the credits of course ), with you being the center piece.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:38pm
Luc Hansen

As you can see from your karma, Pete, nothing will convince those who are hard wired to believe anything inconvenient to their way of life or beliefs, least of all informed debates (why should Al Gore give Monckton a platform? He’s too smart for that) and conclusions drawn from observed data using the scientific method. This method, by the way, that pervades virtually everything they do (including sex, at times).

For what it’s worth, here is as good an explanation I can give for accepting the argument of anthropological global warming without doing my own climate science degree and years of observations:

Global Climate Change and Scientific Proof

The global warming skeptics advance arguments against the conclusions of the IPCC. They argue that anthropogenic global warming has not been “proven”.

But there is no such thing as scientific proof. There are merely falsifiable theories. The ‘proof’ of a positive theory is simply the result of disproving all alternative theories.

We observe that the earth is getting warmer (there may be some controversy over correctness of methods to determine that, but even the skeptics seem to agree with that observation). Scientist offer plausible explanations. Some suggest it is caused by non-anthropogenic factors such as natural solar cycle increasing solar radiation, volcanos belching green-house gases, the tilt of the earth’s axis, reduced cloud cover due to natural factors. Some suggest it is caused by green-house gases resulting from burning of fossil fuels and the loss of forests and other CO2 sinks due to human activity.

One by one, scientists uncover evidence that falsifies the proposed explanations. They succeed in falsifying all theories but one: the increase in greenhouse gases, principally CO2, due to human activity.

Now, maybe the conclusion is wrong because there is some other, as yet unproposed theory, to explain the increase in global temperature. That is always a possibility in ANY scientific theory and that is why science can never prove anything. But until someone proposes another theory, or is able to show that the evidence which destroys an alternative theory is wrong, we are left with the anthropogenic model. And that is as close to ‘proof’ as anyone can get.

QED

For example, evolution is proved by the observed data, as is global warming over the long term (regardless of getstaffed’s presentation of a short term cooling that actually fits within the theory). The explanation, the theory, of evolution is natural selection, which has yet to be disproved hence its widespread acceptance: similarly for global warming (see above)

I must admit though, it’s valuable to be challenged so vociferously and “getmotivated” to study this again.

Naturally, though we tend to look at information that confirms our pre-existing view anyway, and this is true of all of us. While a blind “argument from authority” can be fallacious, I think the sheer weight of the consensus of the relevant scientific community overrides this possibility.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:39pm
big bruv

Great to see that the Democrats are taking a hammering in the gubernatorial elections, the Virginia exit polls make fascinating reading.

Seems that the result is all about Obama and the people’s dissatisfaction with him.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:40pm
Pete George

Questioning climate change is standard amongst the scientific community. That’s how they operate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:40pm
Pete George

Seems that the result is all about Obama and the people’s dissatisfaction with him.

In the last few decades Virginia has always voted in the opposite party to the incumbent so this result is expected.
Exit polls showed that the majority are still happy with Obama.
McDonell (R) was a respected candidate.
Deed (D) was regarded as a weak candidate who didn’t run a very good campaign.

The New Jersey loss is more of a blow to the Ds.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:45pm
Elijah Lineberry

I do not see why such a heated debate is taking place.

Global Warming is nonsense; large corporate interests will pay opinion makers to ensure everyone changes their mind and realises global warming is nonsense; Governments’ will abandon all their idiotic policies which harm business.

This will happen because large corporate interests are rich and Greenies/scientists/loons are poor

Welcome to how planet Earth has operated for thousands of years.

You chaps can say and do whatever you like but inevitably capitalist multinationals will win because they always do and you will have to lump it and the right people will continue to earn vast profits and life will go on as it should.

http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:48pm
getstaffed

the IPCC doesn’t do data

They do ‘do’ data. It’s just you and I only get to see the published reports. As do universities the world over who uses this material as course content. The IPCC’s ‘Expert Review’ is managed in-house, presumably by hand-picked frendlies.

If you think the IPCC are playing with straight dice when the volume of evidence against much of their published material is mounting, then I wish you well as the climate change ‘theorytail’ unwinds.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:49pm
Hurf Durf

NY-23 is sooooooooooooo cloooooooooose. If the people who voted for Scuzzlebutt voted for Hoffman, he would be ahead now. FUCK.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:49pm
philu

“..Sonny Blount (334) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

I can’t be arsed finding all the research papers that show it as they are probably decades old ..”

so..the last scientific reading you did on this is ‘decades old’..eh..?

and bloody hands bob ‘can’t be bothered’putting up any links/supporting evidence..

fucken clowns..!..q.e.d…

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:52pm
Luc Hansen

Welcome to how planet Earth has operated for thousands of years.

Just how many thousands is that again, Elijah?? 🙂 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:54pm
Elijah Lineberry

Luc 4:54pm – I have lost count…ha ha!

But the point remains that you lefty chappies are fighting a battle you have already lost; the reason you have lost is the interests you are fighting make too much money for too many people for them to be cast aside in favour of you.

My mind boggles as to why you bother.

http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 4:58pm
Luc Hansen

Eli, it’s fun, just like debating with creationists.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 5:06pm
Hurf Durf

Fucking Scuzzlebutt. 1 million USD on her and she goes and endorses Owens and sucks up Hoffman’s votes.

Hope she gets a cushty job from Otwat in return and fucks off.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 5:17pm
Paul G. Buchanan

Hurf:

I understand your pain, but do not share it. The GOP victories in the NJ and Va governor races were definite slaps at Obama, but the District 23 outcome, if the results hold, indicate that upstate New Yorkers do not like external meddling in their affairs or simply are not as conservative as the meddlers. Even if the campaign for governorship was dominated by local anti-corruption issues, the NJ loss was particularly bad for Obama because that state traditionally tends to go Dem, Obama won the state by 18 percent last year and had invested much political capital on Corzine. The VA loss is not as bad, since outside of the DC suburbs it tends to be rural-conservative, and with some racial voting patterns (which helped explain why Obama “only” won by 6 points there). Beyond the District 23 special election, there were a a dozen or so mayoralties at stake and so far they have gone mostly Democratic. Ballot initiatives on same-sex marriage and medical marijuana are also trending left.

So the message after one year partially follows the tradition of turning against the president on broad scope issues while favoring local concerns over national ones in most races. The repudiation of Obama is only partial, not complete. Given that overall turnout was low, including in all of the high profile elections (lower turnouts tend to favor Republicans), that would indicate that many voters are adopting a wait and see policy believing that one year is too short a timeframe in which to judge the president. But he and the Democratic congressional caucus have certainly been put on notice that their coattails are a double-edged sword, and hence they need to proceed with caution when formulating their agendas in the run-up to next November’s far more important mid-term elections (where all of the House and several senate seats will be up for grabs).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 5:38pm
Johnboy

Public Notice:

To whom it may amuse.

I (Johnboy.sheep.Walton) being in almost sound mind and slightly fucked body hereby duly authorise all who sail in the good ship KB (under the inspired command of Admiral Farrar) to use the phrase.

‘Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle
Phil the magpie said.’

and all variations of such phrase including additions such as———eh? or ———-meh? etc etc

The sole purpose of the use of this phrase shall be to mightly piss off PhilU (aka ‘Magpie’ ‘Heckle’ ‘Jeckle’ ‘Bludger’ and other alias’s.) as often as possible in an endeavour to reduce the enormity/boredom of his comments.

Signed (Johnboy.sheep.Walton)———-Baaaaaah!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 5:57pm
billyborker

Climate change is a religion, confirmed in a UK court case.

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.

Game over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 6:06pm
Steve

‘always blow on the pie..!’

‘Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle
Phil the magpie said.’
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 6:11pm
philu

“..The sole purpose of the use of this phrase shall be to mightly piss off PhilU ..”

um..!..really..?

hardly ..eh..?

so much effort for such little result..eh..?

ah well..i guess it keeps you .. and the other great thinkers/’wits’..out of trouble..

eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 6:29pm
starboard

“quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle..Im a tool ” says the magpie..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 6:32pm
philu

look..!..there’s one now..!

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 6:33pm
Steve

“quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle..Where’s my bong ” says the magpie..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 6:34pm
Johnboy

look..!..there’s Paula now..!

(Johnboy.sheep.Walton)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 6:36pm
side show bob

Luc

“Why should Al Bore give Monckton a platform? hes to smart for that” Oh fucking please Luc, that snake oil salesman, Bore, would be mince meat, something Al likes sinking his fat chops into. Bore would have to be one of the all time leading hypocrites. House that uses 20 times the power of an average home, private jet aircraft pumping out tons of co2 and a collection of dribbling lefties as thick as pigshit hanging of his every utterance. No Luc the man is coward and a bullshit artist. Not that it really matters, this shit is history, Mac Daddy has just had a good arse kicking and the loony left will be shit scared to sign on the dotted line now, it’s all over Luc. Better find another cause to get your nickers into a twist.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 6:57pm
getstaffed

Borker – I note the UK decision was in respect of a Greenie who refused to travel by plane etc.

I wonder if a consumer who refuses to pay carbon tax or ETS-style charges would be afforded the same protection of the courts?

That would be only fair of course, but I doubt that will happen… meaning adherents of the Climate Change™ religion will have the support of law while non-adherents will not.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 6:59pm
wreck1080

@NeilR:

All public transportation systems around the world are subsidised. Fare prices bear no relation to the cost of providing the service.

If you wanted the public transportation to be funded solely from fare revenue, then there would be no public transport system in auckland.

Given that Aucklanders have decided to fund public transport, they must treat the employees with respect and pay them a wage on which they can support their families in the most expensive city in the country.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 7:04pm
big bruv

I watched TV One’s item about the bus drivers stop work meeting today and the drivers “refusal” of the 11.5% pay offer.

It seems that near enough to half of the drivers were happy to accept the offer, indeed, many of those interviewed as the came out of the meeting said as much.

Apparently, the union thugs hijacked the meeting to ensure that the workers turned the offer down.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 7:11pm
Sonny Blount

Woeful ignorance Luc,

The greenhouse effect is not a theory that is being challenged, it is accepted by all as the phenomenen that gives the Earth its current temperature. What is disputed is a prediction about the future, it’s not really even about CO2, but imagined ‘forcings’.

It is the same as feeding a 100kg man 1,000 potatoes and predicting he will then weigh 200kg. You don’t need to disprove the theory of metabolism to disagree with the prediction of what his weight will be.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 7:13pm
big bruv

“It is the same as feeding a 100kg man 1,000 potatoes and predicting he will become the MP for Ikaroa Rawhiti”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 7:16pm
getstaffed

thank. you. bruv !

cab sav sprayed all over the monitor. bastard! 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 7:19pm
Sonny Blount

Also the predictions are not valid because climate is a chaotic system and cannot be modelled using a computer.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 7:20pm
Pete George

Does that include your predictions Sonny?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 7:23pm
Sonny Blount

What predictions Pete? I don’t use a computer model to look out the window.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 7:55pm
Kris K

Pete George 7:23 pm,

Does that include your predictions Sonny?

The fact that none, and I do mean NONE, of the computer models predicted the global cooling of the last 10 years shows just how pathetic these models are at ‘predicting’ climate change.

I mean if the 6 O’clock news can’t predict the weather even half the time twenty four hours hence, why would we trust computer models which predict the next 100 years, when ALL of them got the last ten years totally wrong?

AGW is a religion, pure and simple.
The second greatest pseudo scientific ‘theory’ foisted upon a gullible Mankind in all recorded history.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 8:15pm
Viking2

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10607156

This today from HNZ.
Essential facts.
The taxpayer has been well and truly fleeced by HNZ and its tenants. Housing repairs last year rose by 37 million dollars to 217 million dollars and rates rose 11 million to 109 million.

Operation income i.e. rents were 887 million.

Quote:
Most of Housing NZ’s revenue – [b]54 per cent – comes from income-related rent subsidies, 39 per cent comes from tenants

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic … d=10607156

So the tax payer spends a fair bit housing his/her other family. Paying for the entitlements of his/her other family when it comes to funding council activities. Activities that taken for granted by the tenants. Tenants who have a vote as of right but are not required in any way to fund local body activities.
N.B. in many area’s HNZ also pays in its rates bill for supplies such as water, rubbish collections and so on.
If Blenglish is going to change the rules around landlords and deductibility from incomes for rental properties then he needs to talk to his Ministers about these public rorts of the system.
Kinda interesting that a lot of the noise about various rorts involving parliamentarians (which need fixing, no question) is generated from the very people who are up to their necks in the rort that is HNZ, Social Welfare and taxpayers providing them a privilege.

It is pleasing to note that rents are rising at last and this today;
Rental activity was also strong, with the average weekly rent achieved by Barfoot & Thompson’s property management division lifting over $400 for the first time to $403, a whopping 4.9 percent increase on the levels of just a month earlier.

“This is the first time average weekly rents have climbed above the $400 mark, and the increase in average weekly rents over those for the previous month was $19, or 4.9 percent,” Thompson said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3030110/House-market-sizzles

Now I would suggest that this is just the start of at least two years of rising rents. Shortage of housing will ensure it happens. If Blenglish wants to attack those that have rental housing and have subsidized others living spaces for a number of years now then he better be prepared to either buy a lot of houses at ever increasing prices, spend more on the housing subsidy or stop NZ’s population from growing. interference in a market place always creates distortion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 8:27pm
Luc Hansen

In order:

Billy, you misrepresent the finding. The green philosophy adopted by the plaintiff is the belief: the science is climate change.

sideshow, personal or institutional failings do not invalidate the science. And you should calm down. I have nothing in a twist over moves to address climate change; rather it is the deniers wo seem to find it necessary to resort to ad hominem rants.

Sonny, all scientific theories are under constant challenge. But anthropogenic global warming is still the consensus findings of the specialists. I wonder if you would argue as much with your heart surgeon. Also, it’s true climate is chaotic, but patterns over huge time spans do exist and these patterns tell us that there is something different afoot this time.

Kris, in my opinion the greatest psuedo science foisted upon man is religion, including “miracles” and creationism.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 8:38pm
Pete George

Improving climate models and predictions

Monday 2 November 2009 at 14:03 GMT

You may find this difficult to believe, but climate science is not conducted within the pages of newspapers, or on the websites of the world’s more opinionated bloggers. But for those without ready access to the ongoing debate among scientists, one could be forgiven for thinking that it is.

Climate predictions rely on models of the Earth’s atmosphere, and models are, owing to the complexity of the natural world and the limited computational power at our disposal, idealised representations of reality. However, simplified though they can sometimes be, climate models are subject to continuous development and refinement as we learn more about the Earth system. Uncertainties in the predictions made with the aid of models are thereby reduced.

Contrary to the claims of anthropogenic climate change sceptics and outright deniers, the science of global warming is settled. What continues to be debated are the finer details of the processes involved and their complex interactions. These are of course crucial, and there is much discussion within the Earth science community about uncertainties in climate models, and the impact these have on predictions which will have huge social and economic ramifications.

In a recent issue of the American Geophysical Union’s house journal Eos, Columbia University researcher Lisa Goddard and others discuss among other things the issue of uncertainty, and the difficulty in making predictions with climate models.

“Although scientific effort never will eliminate uncertainty, it can better estimate uncertainty. This is especially true at the time scales of seasons to decades, which are the most actionable time scales. These are the time scales at which incremental adaptation can evolve with the help of appropriate state-of-the-art climate predictions.”

Goddard and her colleagues go on to stress that climate science is inherently probabilistic in nature, and, as such, individual models cannot be used for point-specific climate forecasting. This crucial point must be hammered into the dense skulls of pundits and policymakers who cannot seem to cope with anything other than simple, binary logic. What is needed, say the authors, is for decision makers to learn how to treat information about future climate as a range of possibilities.

http://sedgemore.com/2009/11/improving-climate-models-and-predictions/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 8:48pm
Luc Hansen

And Kris: “The fact that none, and I do mean NONE, of the computer models predicted the global cooling of the last 10 years shows just how pathetic these models are at ‘predicting’ climate change.”

I googled: climate cooling anticipated

and top of the page was

For years, Russians have been predicting global cooling because of an anticipated change in the sun’s output. They do not necessarily contest the validity …
http://www.energyendgame.com/Cooling.htm – Similar –
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 8:50pm
huttriverofnz

And I have found myself with an open mind on the subject of global warming. It is happening, but what is the cause? Humankind, cyclical weather patterns, or a combination of both?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 8:55pm
Viking2

OH Dear and we have just ordered another 14 of these flying machines.
etstar ‘blackout’ link to fatal Air France crash
Article from: The Courier-Mail

* Font size: Decrease Increase
* Email article: Email
* Print article: Print
* Submit comment: Submit comment

Geoff Easdown and Geraldine Mitchell

November 03, 2009 11:00pm

A JETSTAR plane may have suffered the same malfunction last week that brought down an Air France jet in the Atlantic in June, killing all 228 on board.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority are probing the similarities between both incidents.

At 1.30am on October 29 the pilot of the Jetstar Airbus 330-200 reported an instrument blackout as the jet, carrying 200 passengers, passed through storm clouds between Japan and the Gold Coast.

Investigators are treating the incident as serious and have downloaded information from the jet’s flight data recorders before the jet was released back to the airline. After normal flight was resumed, the crew radioed Jetstar’s Melbourne HQ for advice where it was determined that the plane should fly on to the Gold Coast.

* Qantas probe: Pilots ‘forgot to lower wheels’
* The Punch: Black box – or brown undies?

The aircraft landed five hours later without the passengers knowing what happened.

During the six-second blackout, the automatic pilot malfunctioned and fluctuating readings were transmitted by one of the jet’s three airspeed indicators, a similar situation to what the pilot of the Air France jet is said to have reported in his final radio message before his aircraft broke up and plunged into the ocean.

Jetstar said last night that early indications were the airspeed sensing system suffered a momentary interruption, after which the instruments returned to normal. “The crew remained in full control of the aircraft at all times and responded in accordance with training and procedure,” the airline said.

A spokesperson said the carrier was also liaising closely with Airbus on the issue, adding that a number of parts were replaced during a detailed examination of the jet before it was allowed to resume flying.

The Jetstar and Air France jets were similar models, Airbus 330-200 jetliners.

Until now Jetstar parent Qantas has steadfastly maintained its jets are different to the doomed Air France airliner.

Jetstar aircraft are fitted with different speed sensors to those used on Air France planes and which investigators believe may have iced up and caused the mid-Atlantic disaster.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 9:06pm
Luc Hansen

# huttriverofnz(1) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

And I have found myself with an open mind on the subject of global warming. It is happening, but what is the cause? Humankind, cyclical weather patterns, or a combination of both?

hutt, where have you been hiding? There is enough information and links above for you to do your own research. Try it. You might even like it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 9:54pm
Luc Hansen

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that victims of extraordinary rendition cannot sue Washington for torture suffered overseas, because Congress has not authorized such lawsuits.

This case concerned a Canadian citizen detained in the US and exported to Syria where he was held in humiliating and inhuman confinement and subject to torture for 12 mths. The Canadian government later declared him innocent and awarded him about C10 million dollars. He then sued the US government but a federal court said it can’t find for him because national security interests trump everything else.

Thin about it: it is now officially non-actionable, legally, for the US government to pick you up in US territory, charge you with no crime, torture and/or kill you in a state that allow these practices. You or your family will receive no compensation even if you are proved innocent. The US government has not contested any of the plaintiffs allegations.

Let’s hope the plaintiff appeals and the Supreme Court arrives at a the kind of decision we expect from the land of the free.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 10:04pm
Shunda barunda

Has anyone figured out how to kill manbearpig yet? I know the science is settled on his existence but how do we actually kill him?
And why are the worlds leaders still having a conference on manbearpig if they really believe he is real? Is someone trying to use the hype over manbearpig for another reason?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 10:39pm
getstaffed

Contrary to the claims of anthropogenic climate change sceptics and outright deniers, the science of global warming is settled.

Pete, with respect, that’s complete nonsense. The science on which the theory/theories are based is so far from settled that one will find more fact in a JK Rowling novel.

In many cases this science is based on source data that’s been ‘adjusted’, or not-peer reviewed, or plain fabricated (ie the removal of the Medieval Warming Period from IPCC’s released datasets, ice caps are melting when ther are expanding, the ocean is warming when it is, in fact, cooling etc).

In other cases cherry-picked datasets have been adopted in support while the majority of ‘unsupportive’ datasets from the same knowledge domains have been dropped. Google ‘CRU Yamal data set’ for more info.

The adoption of arbitrary start and end dates for trend mapping in support of pre-determined outcomes is rife. The incidence of hurricane occurrence is a great exampled here. IPCC use data from 1970 which shows an increasing trend. Data from 1940, which they chose to withold, reveals a decreasing trend.

No, the science is not settled. It’s it riddled with bullets of truth and scientific sunlight, and the worshipers at the altar of climate change are rightfully worried.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 11:03pm
Shunda barunda

For the record I agree with getstaffed, the science is not settled on AGW, but manbearpig is alive and well in the fearful minds of AGW believers everywhere. The hunt continues, he MUST be killed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 4, 2009 11:28pm
XChequer

Rodders Hide is in the shit!

Marvelous stuff! “Key does nothing” the headline rings.

Look for ACT to hit true minority status after this gaffe. I wonder if Rodders is in any way related to Prince Philip?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2009 6:48am
Redbaiter

MARTIN van BEYNEN

Just another amoral commie creep posing as a journalist.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2009 7:01am
MikeNZ

I’m with getstaffed
the science is not settled but the results were before they were in!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2009 8:17am
Kris K

Luc Hansen [November 4th, 2009 at 8:50 pm],

And Kris: “The fact that none, and I do mean NONE, of the computer models predicted the global cooling of the last 10 years shows just how pathetic these models are at ‘predicting’ climate change.”

I googled: climate cooling anticipated and top of the page was

For years, Russians have been predicting global cooling because of an anticipated change in the sun’s output. They do not necessarily contest the validity …
http://www.energyendgame.com/Cooling.htm – Similar –

And the rest of the quote:
Global cooling gains some credibility – February 8, 2008

“For years, Russians have been predicting global cooling because of an anticipated change in the sun’s output. They do not necessarily contest the validity of global warming from greenhouse gases, but they point out that if the sun gets “cooler” everything else does not matter.”

Interesting that this info comes out in 2008 when we’ve already had about 10 years of cooling. But notice, too, that they “do not necessarily contest the validity of global warming from greenhouse gases”. Sounds like a bob each way if you ask me.

The fact that those that believe AGW is a psuedo scientific contrivance have also stated that reducing sun spot activity is in fact the primary driver for climate cooling reveals that this is basic common sense. Heck, even I predict climate change in accordance with sun spot activity – whoopdy do.

ALL of the computer models the IPCC used predicted uncontrolled AGW. The fact that for the last 10 years we’ve had global cooling has frustrated their religious aims no end – of course now they call it ‘Climate Change’, not ‘Global Warming’.

It’s a religion, Luc, and you’ve got a lot more spadework to do to overcome the avalanche of evidence against AGW.
Good luck with that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2009 9:48am
llew

MARTIN van BEYNEN

Just another amoral commie creep posing as a journalist.

Rodney Hide, another swaggering fool politician opening his mouth without engaging his brain.

Look for ACT to hit true minority status after this gaffe. I wonder if Rodders is in any way related to Prince Philip?

It’ll blow over. On the subject of fulsome pollies though, anyone else hear Tim Shadbolt admit he was trying to roll his deputy because he was jealous of him?

Slow down & let that brain catch up Tim.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2009 10:02am
Luc Hansen

The point with global cooling, Kris, is that it gives us a window to actually put in place changes in the way we do things in the long term interests of the planet. Everywhere we go on the internet, scientific magazines etc there is no serious rebuttal of global warming.

And the smart money is on it being in large part due to human activity. Now you stick to your risible quotations out of a scientifically risible work of art – literature – by all means, but I swing in behind the precautionary principle when such stakes are involved and my chioldren and grandchildren are depending on us adults to do the right thing.

Swanning around on a flying carpet of speech marks just marks you as an enemy of mankind, basically. Al Qaeda ain’t got nothing on you and your mates above.

It makes me wish I had taken psychology at uni so I had more insight into what drives such self-endangering behaviour. Maybe you secretly wish for Armageddon. You should be careful what you wish becuse according to your nonsense god gave us life and

“Whatsover God giveth, God taketh away.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2009 2:23pm
Kris K

Luc Hansen 2:23 pm,

Gee you talk a lot of crap, Luc.
You and Gore are two peas in the same pod – so I shouldn’t be surprised.

And if you’re really concerned about the (eternal) wellbeing of your children and grandchildren, then I have some reference materials you could give them. As you already have all the answers, though, I guess it unlikely you’ll be taking up my offer. Your loss, and sadly, theirs as well.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2009 2:42pm
philu

oh dear..!..the fundamentalist is having a smug/condescending/arrogant/patronising-moment..

(they are prone to those..those fundamentalists..)

btw..i hope you always wear clean underwear..eh..?

never can tell when the rapture will kick off..?

eh..?

have you thought of going to the top of a mountain..?

and just waiting for it..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2009 2:51pm
Kris K

Phool,

Do you ever get sick of shouting into an echo chamber?

It’s interesting that most of the things you accuse me of are in fact attributes that you possess. Attributes that you portray to others that take the trouble to read your dots and dashes. As I’ve said before; I’m surprised that DPF even gives you the oxygen to breath in this blog. I know I wouldn’t.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2009 4:55pm
philu

“..I know I wouldn’t..”

that’s no surprise..eh..?

fundies aren’t known for any tolerance of free-speech..

(it’s just another of their little ‘quirks’..eh..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 5, 2009 5:00pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Trevett on Tolley

Human Rights Commission on Search and Surveillance Bill »

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

Javier Milei’s Chainsaw on Bureaucracy
Not PC
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
#climateemergency
Utopia
Do The Health Authorities Require Too Much From a GP?
No Minister
The h?koi was M?ori Party’s crowning glory – and provided plenty for Labour to think about
Point of Order
It’s National ACT NZF who are Dishonouring the Treaty + the day Moana Jackson knocked Gerry Brownlee on his bum
The Daily Blog
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
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