General Debate 8 December 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment75

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (75)

Login to comment or vote

petal

CK’s locked the door!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 8:21am
tom hunter

And on that theme….. I love this metaphor in a report on the latest fiscal crisis in California:

The L.A. Times reports Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “is scheduled to welcome the new [California] Legislature on Monday by declaring a fiscal emergency and ordering it into special session.”

Boy, it sure would be nice if we could deal with some of these fiscal problems before they explode into “emergencies.” California has been storing highly flammable canisters of unsustainable spending in the basement for decades, while chasing away business with flaming torches made from bundles of expensive regulations and mandates.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 8:25am
Inventory2

Ian Chappell hasn’t taken the Australians’ loss to the English too kindly; not that Ian Botham is any saint

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2010/12/old-enough-to-know-better.html

Men behaving badly?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 8:34am
TripeWryter

When I read that about Cactus Kate, Petal, I thought you meant she had crossed her legs.

Is it a stitch-up with Google?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 8:39am
dad4justice

“Men behaving badly?”

I can’t remember SIR Ian Botham ordering a bowler to bowl under arm. I back Botham any day over that smart arse cheating loud mouth ocker. Lest we forget!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 8:42am
Inventory2

@ Dad – wrong Chappell; that was Greg
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 8:43am
John Gibson

I believe Cactus Kate has done this in the past. There seems to be a shortage of female political bloggers. There used to be a couple of regular of female guest bloggers on here but they have been dead for quite some time. I have a suspicion one of those guest bloggers was Cactus kate’s alter ego & the other was a politically connected housewife from Te Tron.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 8:56am
Nookin

Actually, I’d have both of them in the NZ squad even now. Not many bowlers would send down a dolly full toss with a handful of runs and a handful of balls left if they had to face botham or chappelli in the changing sheds afterwards.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 8:59am
bearhunter

Given all the bleating and handwringing about education standards here, it appears NZ’s schools aren’t quite as shit as many think:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 9:08am
grumpyoldhori

Time for captain Warne.
As much as the ockers are a cheating pack of bastards who clank from their shackles as they stagger about, they are still Anzacs.
Unlike the bloody poms who when they drew against the ABs awhile back went on a bloody victory lap.

Shane Warne as captain and spin bowler why not, he is still the best spinner in Aus.
Nothing like having the poms waking screaming at the thought of facing Warne on the SCG.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/sorry-punter–its-time-for-captain-warnie-20101207-18ocy.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 9:12am
Uplander

Curia’s Public Poll average in the left panel seems locked on Sunday 12/09/10.
Can it be updated?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 9:29am
James Stephenson

Unlike the bloody poms who when they drew against the ABs awhile back went on a bloody victory lap.

What utter utter bollocks. You lot down here know nothing of the ettiquette that governs the interaction between real supporters and their team (probably because as imaginative as NZ rugby fans get is an endless drone of “All-Blacks, All-Blacks”).

It was the England team’s absolute duty to thank the fans for their support during the game (especially since they’d taken the game away from Twickenham to Old Trafford in soccer’s heartland), teams that scuttle off to the changing rooms after a defeat without fronting up to the fans are to be despised.

Oh, and Warne’s best ever Ashes series was 2005, when the Aussies lost.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 9:36am
david

Grumpy,
I think you will find that Peter Fitzimmons had his tongue firmly stuck in his cheek when he wrote that. Consider the thoughts behind the suggestion to bring back Glen McGrath to stiffen the batting line-up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 9:45am
grumpyoldhori

Pommy rugby etiquette is getting a thrashing and enjoying it, must be all those so called public school types in the team that make them that way as they certainly have had a lot of practice at getting thrashings at the hands of the ABs.

One has to laugh, the poms were ranting that we raid the South Pacific, yet they are that desperate they have a couple of hories in their team.
Not top draw but one would not expect much else playing for England.

Jeez, English rugby is sad, even the amateurs from Portugal have a better test try scoing record than England does against the ABs.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 9:56am
grumpyoldhori

david of course, but, as a batsman which spin bowlers would you least like to face ?
Warne on the SCG, he would still be dangerous.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:00am
James Stephenson

Grumpy – number of World Cups won, not on home soil?

England – 1
AB’s – 0

That won’t change even after next year…ha ha ha ha.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:05am
bearhunter

And loth though I am to kick off another bout of whataboutery over AGW, I’ve found my favourite quote about it from Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary:

“It is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can, with absolute precision, predict what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 years’ time. It’s horseshit.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:16am
Lance

@bearhunter
Sigh…. let’s compare apples with oranges… about as useful as “I smoked all my bloody life and I haven’t died of lung cancer, therefore it’s all shit and I am old now, so fags increased my life expectancy”
Weather and climate are different. It’s been pointed out adnusium many times on this very blog.

I am sure old buggers putting the world to right at the pub mock the weather / climate connection but really, they are fuckwits and don’t know it.

You are right about the AGW debate, it has been done to death.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:31am
bearhunter

Lance, I’m not quite as thick as you think I am. I was admiring his turn of phrase rather than his logic. Indeed, logic isn’t necessarily Michael’s strong suit, but he’;s always entertaining.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:40am
Pete George

O’Leary’s turn of phrase could be turned on him – what he said is horseshit, either based on ignorance or deliberately ignoring reality (no one is predicting with any precision what the temperature will be).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:45am
kowtow

You are wrong about the AGW debate. It is not a debate. It is junk science being used to impose unnecessary controls , taxes and a gult complex on the western,developed world and as such should be mocked ,highlighted and resisted wherever possible.

It is being introduced to school subjects so now our children are being exposed to leftist propaganda(as if they weren’ t already)

And if “old buggers putting the world to rights” are fuckwits then I’d hate to know what you are!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:47am
MikeNZ

in one kowtow.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:52am
Pete George

AGW, particularly the political side of it, should be debated, must be debated.

There’s no question there is a lot scientific research and analysis going on with climate. Projections and predictions certainly deserve scrutiny and debate. To dismiss ALL of climate science as junk is very naive, or ignorant, or deliberate attempts to divert from reality.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:06am
Lance

@kowtow

What ever….

I’m not interested in your rant.
I’ll spell it out for you in case you didn’t get it…….I was pointing out logic errors that form the basis of misguided arguments.

I was not debating AGW as such.

But fell free, away you go, tell us how all the scientists know nothing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:07am
bearhunter

(rapid change of subject) So how about them Black Caps then? Couldn’t defend 315?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:22am
jinpy

bearhunter,

You make the logical error in assuming that “reading some guy saying AGW is bullshit” = “AGW is bullshit”.

I wished people would show some humility about this and think about it with an open mind, rather than being political. It is absolutetly bizarre that this issue should be split by left v right if you think about it — why should the truth or not of a scientific phenomena involving an intricate web of feedbacks in the natural world be based on the political views of humans?

Let me state what we do know, or can summise, about the reality of AGW.

– There is a lot of complex physics, chemistry, biology, geology, atmospheric science… that brings to bear on the question. Solar activity, ocean currents, albedos, photochemical reactions, urban heat islands, tundra, CO2 spectral features, methane, nitrous oxide, orbital wobbles, ice ages, sediment records, ice cores, isotope variation, ocean pH, global variation in temperatures, sea levels, fluxes, biological activity… that govern it. Can you honestly look Kiwiblog in the face and say you understand this? Why would you confidently assert that you know the answer to this complex issue?

– CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans emit a large amount of C02 into the atmosphere every year, and has been since the industrial revolution.

– Temperatures and CO2 are increasing

– A majority of scientists in the fields above have brought an issue to our attention, which they suggest may have important ramifications

– Models based on historical events and current knowledge have predicted temperature rises of varying amounts. These models are best guesses based on current knowledge and have a large spread of scenarios due to many unknown factors.

– Their is an economic cost for any change in our current reliance on fossil fuels

– Big business and oil interests fund groups to disseminate views contrary to the AGW consensus

– Scientists are human and history shows that some consensus have been proven to be incorrect

Now lets look at the groups involved and their various self-interest, these are guesses and generalisations…

– Scientists (supporters)
Have an incentive to make AGW an issue as it guarantees funding for research. Are subject to peer review. Those near the top of their fields are smart (sometimes extremely smart), work hard, and are genuinely interested in science-for-science sake while often also interested in status (in their respective fields more usually than mainstream public). Some may feel political pressure potentially to stay in line with the common view, or may be have cognitive bias in this regard.

– Scientists (deniers)
Gain greater exposure for stating denying views than mainstream scientists stating mainstream views — denial in the face of the mainstream is actually a tempting stance in terms of human psychology. Some benefit financially through book sales, some are supported by big business. Some speak on areas they are not qualified in and do not admit their errors when rebutted. Get a lot of attention and opportunities.

– Public (left/environmentalists)
Prone to exaggeration and doomsday mentality. Conflate several different issues (AGW, adverse weather, sea level, species loss, polar bears, capitalism) thus clouding the primary AGW issue. Pretend to understand more than they do, although do often cite the actual science involved and generally fall back on the IPCC position as trustworthy. Rankle mainstream by bringing all sorts of left-wing politics and self-righteousness into the debate. Don’t question how bad consequences will be, believe in acting even if AGW not as bad as made out.

– Public (right/deniers)
Tend to act in self-interest. Very cognisent of the economic consequences of trying to limit fossil fuels and unhappy about that. Not convinced by actual harm even if AGW true. Perceive scientists as being part of conspiracy or self-interest group while ignoring the obvious incentives of being a denier and the transparent desire of big business and oil interests to twist the debate and muddy the waters. Perceive AGW believers as attacking their views which they therefore must defend. Accept absolutely any information, blog, comment, graffiti… that says AGW is false. Pretend to know more than they do. Resistant to change.

Personally, my mind is not made up about the consequences of AGW but I believe the mechanism to be occuring. There are too many unknowns around the feedbacks and the models to be definitive about it. The temperature record is telling us something though.

My challenge is for people to stop muddying the waters. Stop posting these rubbish links unless youre prepared to reason yourself about it. Or just state your actual view: “AGW could be true but I’m not particularly worried about short term socialpolitical issues that may arise as a result” or “I believe my part of the world will turn out OK” or “history shows that humans are adaptable” or “I believe in technofix” or “the economic consequences are too great, we should wait another 50 years and see what happens…” But not linking to propaganda which you have no clue about the actual veracity of.

– There
Some people are against it because of its
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:24am
Lance

@jinpy
Nice summary
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:31am
Pete George

Yep, excellent summary. But your challenge is futile. There are a hard core here who only seem to use religious “logic” – they decide they believe something and will try to dismiss and rubbish anything and everything that suggests any alternative. They may have no scientific understanding, or they may use science selectively, when it suits them it’s fine, when it doesn’t they think it all must be rubbish.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:36am
Herman Poole

There is so much wrong in your post jinpy. Too much to bother correcting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:37am
big bruv

hori

“Warne on the SCG, he would still be dangerous.”

Yes he would be, but, arguably he would be playable because of the lack of bounce.

Prodigious turn is dangerous but it can be nullified (think Fleming v Muralichucker in Sri Lanaka a few years back)

A player like Warne becomes unplayable when he has turn and bounce, Warne on a fifth day Gabba or Wacca wicket is a much harder prospect than Warne at the SCG.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:40am
Herman Poole

Yep, excellent summary. But your challenge is futile. There are a hard core here who only seem to use religious “logic” – they decide they believe something and will try to dismiss and rubbish anything and everything that suggests any alternative. They may have no scientific understanding, or they may use science selectively, when it suits them it’s fine, when it doesn’t they think it all must be rubbish.

Nice bit of fence sitting, ‘Splinters’ George. Applies to both sides of the debate. You have missed the description of observers like yourself, who favour bland, sweeping generalisations of people, with childish explanations of matters they do not bother to attempt to understand themselves.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:47am
James Stephenson

You have missed the description of observers like yourself, who favour bland, sweeping generalisations…

Says the poster of this:

There is so much wrong in your post jinpy. Too much to bother correcting.

Hello Mr Kettle.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:51am
Pete George

And you are also contradicting yourself Herman, one sided and fence sitter don’t work together. But thanks for the adult explanation of nothing much.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:58am
jinpy

Hermann,
I didn’t imply anything to be gospel truth. You disagree that there are political issues involved?

P.s. don’t post if you have nothing to say.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 12:06pm
Herman Poole

And you are also contradicting yourself Herman, one sided and fence sitter don’t work together. But thanks for the adult explanation of nothing much.

Where did I say one-sided?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 12:08pm
Herman Poole

– Public (right/deniers)
Tend to act in self-interest.

Infantile.

– Big business and oil interests fund groups to disseminate views contrary to the AGW consensus

Simply wrong. They give more to AGW lobbying and research than skepticism.

Business interests do not lie in oil, they lie in making money. Their preference would be for that money not to come from resources in politically unstable areas, but by the same token, if oil is where the money is they will take it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 12:12pm
kowtow

that wasn’t a summary
and the head of the IPCC ain’t a scientist nor is Al Bore
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 12:19pm
Pete George

“Where did I say one-sided?”
“Nice bit of fence sitting, ‘Splinters’ George. Applies to both sides of the debate. ”

As you highlighted I was criticising “debaters” on one side – by sitting on the fence, somehow.

You seem to have picked up a label another poster is fond of giving me when I point out his extreme views. I’m not sure why he is bothered by a bland fence sitter.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 12:22pm
jinpy

Herman,

You may have spotted some generalizations along fairly typical lines and assumed I mean big business is always bad. I guess the language reveals my traditional sympathies. I don’t mean that, I’m really referring to the political lobby against AGW well known to be funded by various interests (not all business, but certain businesses).

Self-interest, again a generalisation but the only way to explain the head in sand mentality and the massive resistance to factoring any environmental factors into our economic system. Of course, you may argue the premise is that strong economies fulfill quality of life for everybody and you may have a point.

Oil businessess prefer to make easy money out of oil, while hedging against the possiblity of future changes.

I have as much biases as the next man, at least I don’t pretend otherwise.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 12:36pm
petal

@John Gibson – I don’t think CK is that fragile. I suspect a technical problem.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 1:19pm
tom hunter

the massive resistance to factoring any environmental factors into our economic system. Of course, you may argue the premise is that strong economies fulfill quality of life for everybody and you may have a point.

With past efforts to combat “pollution” there has usually been some fairly solid cost data tied to it – even if it was merely the cost of cleanup, which people would pay for because almost everyone agreed that they liked swimming in clean lakes, rivers and the sea, and that they hated coughing all the time in cities because of industrial smoke and fumes. I say almost everyone because the evil owners of those businesses naturally did not live in such worlds but, Monty Burns-like, up on a hilltop mansion.

Which is to say that it’s not simple, individual perversity that creates this massive resistance – it’s the simple fact that all markets accept a limit on knowledge when pricing something and are only willing to hazard hedged guesses beyond that. Prices have this fuzziness built in – which is why we’ve had scientists (especially physicists it would seem) sneering at economics for a long time and thinking that if only the equations can be made more complex they’ll be able to get prices exact.

That’s not going to happen – ever – and the problem for AGW in particular and the environmental movement in general is that they cannot make any realistic estimate of the costs of the status quo. Instead we get things like the Stern report, which selected utterly unrealistic discount rates and cherry picked negative outcomes from a warming climate change. That is one way of calculating a cost but it’s also at odds with how things work in reality where even negative events can deliver positive outcomes – so people have dismissed those cost estimates.

Which leaves us with only the actual, known costs of switching to renewable energy sources or the stupid idea of a “zero-growth economy”. When comparing a known calculable cost to an unknown calculable benefit in any situation, the result will be the status quo.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 1:33pm
MikeMan

A quote from Eric Thompson’s motoring blog on the NZH amused me today.

As far as I’m concerned, Lieutenant Colonel R. J. Wiedemann summed it up perfectly when he said: “Political correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10692522
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 1:36pm
grumpyoldhori

Big bruv I was at the SCG when Warne bowled a beauty out of the footmarks, a snake on speed would have been left well behind.
Boils down to, is Warne the best spin bowler Aus have, can he bowl twenty overs a day while keeping the pressure on.

Murali a chucker, hmm, maybe all offies should be put through a straight arm test, the results could be surprising.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 1:42pm
MyNameIsJack

I have had a gutsful of sadsack brain damaged inbreds moaning that they don’t get centre stage at Xmas.

Fuck off, god botherers, Xmas belongs to The People, not your church!

My 14 year old daughter came home, said she was preggers and god was the daddio. Yeah, right.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 1:55pm
jinpy

tom,

I can agree with your economics analysis around price and AGW — my implied suggestion that this would be practical or effective is just a hastily made comment. Monty Burns stereotyping also noted …

However, I would argue we havent been particularly good in this country in factoring pollution costs into price. Just look at our farming sector and the quality of most of our waterways.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 2:04pm
Jimbob

The only way anybody is going to believe or not to believe in catastrophic man made global warming is to do some reading for themselves. It is all on the internet, all you need to to google some research. There are a number of books to read, you will find which ones to buy when you search the net. I have done all this and am sick of reading about any more.
The one conclusion that sticks out like dogs balls is that the chances of Man causing run away global warming are so small as to be infinitesimal. Natural climate variations are greater than Man’s influence, the point being scientists do not know exactly how the climate actually works. Man was around when Greenland was farmed, which was warmer than now. How come? As Jack Palance said in “City Slickers” about the meaning of life, ” nobody knows”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 2:17pm
tom hunter

However, I would argue we havent been particularly good in this country in factoring pollution costs into price. Just look at our farming sector and the quality of most of our waterways.

Uh huh.

As it happens I’m also a dairy farmer when I’m not being an IT consultant – and the quality of the waterways in our district is good enough to catch trout in. Whether it’s weed growth, eels, clarity of water or anything else anecdotal I can’t see any difference in the three major streams on my farm from when I was a boy and it was a sheep farm.

Morever I’m dealing with a situation right now that is what I described earlier – to a tee. I’m staring down the barrel of tens of thousands of dollars expenditure to build an effluent pond that will store the waste on wet days. On dry days I’ll be allowed to pump it out and spray it on the paddocks. Rather a turnaround to build such an ugly thing, when a decade ago I finally got rid of the old oxidation ponds and replaced them with a mobile paddock spray system. That seemed entirely natural to me, better for the environment I thought – exactly the same as if the cows were standing in the paddock but absorbing into the soil and grass far more quickly than the “natural” deposits left behind.

Even then I not would object to this imposition – IF Environment Waikato could provide me with the scientific/engineering analysis that demonstrates that the runoff is worse than standing cows, particularly in light of the fenced-off wetlands I’ve maintained on the farm that should also assist in absorbtion. At this moment they can only point to places like Lake Taupo (far from us), not any of our district’s streams. Nor do they even have a way of numerically assessing when things are “too wet” to allow the dispersal: “ponding” is the term, but it has no definition, so even Fonterra has (perhaps sarcastically) advised me that “ponding” will be if a piece of liquid shit splashes on the inspector’s boots while walking the paddocks. Great – bureaucratic judgement calls – just what society needs.

This is the everyday reality of environmental care:
– bureaucratic rules and regulations based on general scientific conclusions rather than specific ones.

– in short, no real pricing of the environmental costs (as usual) only of what my direct costs will be.

– advice” that proffers solutions that are questionable in the first place and seem to belong to the “what else can we do” category.

– solutions which lead either to bureaucratic indifference (the problem’s solved according to our book)
– or further interference as the need to more precisely control the “problem” arises. What next, pleading phonecalls to EW for permission to pump, authorisation written in triplicate, helicopter overflights? Actually the latter is already here: in 2010 Big Brother Is Watching is no longer a novelist’s nightmare.

– fines and other punishments dished out in an arbitary manner (I already am aware of one farmer in a nearby district who was fined $15,000 despite fixing the problem within the 30 day allowance supposedly given – with another $15,000 in legal costs).

– an investment with no measurable ROI to anybody – just a vague “feelgood”, defensive measure.

– classification as a “polluter”, with all the lovely societal approbation that involves. Useful language for morally upright “haters of pollution” of course.

– general ignorance of the public, who probably don’t care anyway as it effects only a small, “rich” part of the population.

– another shove in the direction of big business, who will ultimately be the only ones able to carry the capital costs, as the bar of what constitutes pollution is steadily raised, and who will be the ultimate benefactors as small/medium farmers sell out to them. I suppose at least the latter will give the left something to unload on, but I would not bet against the lobbying power of such big businesses.

AGW is all that on stilts.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 2:53pm
Lance

This is no doubt going to unleash the unwavering Palin supporters but fuck this makes me laugh.
Rule # 1
If you make a TV show about some characteristic of yourself, don’t be a faker, it will stick out like dogs balls.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10692930
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 3:30pm
MyNameIsJack

Nah lance, redbaiter’s got his own echo chamber now, so you’re safe. Cracked me up when I read.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 3:36pm
jinpy

Tom,

Great to get an ‘on the ground’ perspective. I admit on seeing the detail and the beuracratic difficulties the issue becomes much more complex and intangible, and comments such as I have posted like ‘factor in environmental costs’ become somewhat trite. I have some sympathy for your plight as it seems you have already approached the problem independently.

I won’t try to defend the various regulations and beuracracy because I don’t know enough and it may well be that they don’t either. I’m surprised that there isnt enough research to convince of the benefits of storing on wet days if they make that a rule, and it would not seem too difficult to define a wet day. I would only be happy with changes based on research.

Naturally local effects would also play a role, oxidation ponds etc, which does make the whole thing rather difficult.

However, as far pollution of local streams, that should be tangibly evident from environmental water quality. What river do the streams flow to and what are the levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria counts, dissolved oxygen etc here. The data I would have thought should be transparent on this.

And it also has to be said, although you have been active in dealing with effluent, other haven’t and in many areas still don’t.

But very valid points, particularly as you are right as the economic consequences of not doing anything are minimal, it is really a push for improved recreation and water quality.

I guess thats the problem with so many of these solutions, that there are inequities in who bears the cost, that there are many unknowns, and that the regulations and beuracracy is ineffective. Much food for thought. Maybe just an expenditure for the whole country to bear, or farming overall through a Fonterra tax if we want clean water…?

To return to the general (ideal) case though, our water quality is affected by the economic activity of farming and this stops me from enjoying swimming in the Waikato river for example. While the whole country wins from taxes with farming, it is the farmer that makes the most from their investment and ought to cough up, no? Just as industry should be charged for their (potentially much more damaging) effluents.

I’m sure many could disabuse me and not to get personal or us v them but my general impression is that dairy farmers do very well in New Zealand depending on the local area and the international environment. People I have known have set up several of their children with education and support purchasing houses and have retired well off. People I went to school with were considered relatively wealthy. I know work is hard, natural disasters damaging, and mortgages large but someone dairying over the last 20 years or so would be in a fairly healthy position I would have thought.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 3:38pm
Pete George

But but but but – bet she’s more experienced than Obama. And she didn’t use an autocue.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 3:39pm
Herman Poole

“Where did I say one-sided?”
“Nice bit of fence sitting, ‘Splinters’ George. Applies to both sides of the debate. ”

As you highlighted I was criticising “debaters” on one side – by sitting on the fence, somehow.

You seem to have picked up a label another poster is fond of giving me when I point out his extreme views. I’m not sure why he is bothered by a bland fence sitter.

My point is Pete, your original post, to me, described AGW supporters and you didn’t state whether you were describing one particular group. So it looks like you are saying ‘all people with an opinion on AGW are ‘religous’ about it’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 3:54pm
Fletch

14 year old admits starting the fire in Israel with a discarded coal from his Hookah pipe…

A 14-year-old boy from the Carmel region admitted Monday to throwing a piece of burning coal into the forest and causing what later became the largest and most devastating forest fire in Israel’s history.

Police arrested the teen early on Monday, and he admitted during his interrogation to smoking a Hookah pipe in the forest, and later disposing the burning piece of coal into an open area in the woods, which caused a fire to erupt.

The teen said that he was so astounded at what had happened that he ran back to school and didn’t report the incident to anyone.

He will be brought before the Haifa Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday for deliberations on extending his remand.

MORE
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 3:58pm
Pete George

I said “there are a hard core here”, I didn’t mean that as “all people with an opinion”. I assumed that most here who have seen AGW posts would realise that the hard core repeaters, with one possible exception, are in the “all climate science is crap/bogus/junk” camp.

More post here on climate who accept there is science involved but that some of it can be disputed and questioned, especially the degree of effect and change.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 4:04pm
Herman Poole

Herman,

You may have spotted some generalizations along fairly typical lines and assumed I mean big business is always bad. I guess the language reveals my traditional sympathies. I don’t mean that, I’m really referring to the political lobby against AGW well known to be funded by various interests (not all business, but certain businesses).

Self-interest, again a generalisation but the only way to explain the head in sand mentality and the massive resistance to factoring any environmental factors into our economic system. Of course, you may argue the premise is that strong economies fulfill quality of life for everybody and you may have a point.

Oil businessess prefer to make easy money out of oil, while hedging against the possiblity of future changes.

I have as much biases as the next man, at least I don’t pretend otherwise.

You still are assuming, that the people who disagree with AGW are dishonest or stupid. This is a large segment of the population.

The political lobby of big business is behind AGW, BP et al have many investments and marketing around renewables.

You simply cannot compare the personal financial interest of people like Al Gore and Rahendra Pachauri with Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton. The comparison falls over very heavily for the AGW side.

Many deniers are interested in scientific veracity and historical awareness. IMO a proper evaluation of the science gives the answer that AGW is an interesting hypothesis, but it is a long way from a proven theory. Any follower of history will be aware that mankind has always felt itself on the brink of doom, and many of the actions caused by these beliefs have had very negative outcomes. It began with human sacrifices to appease the gods. And now all sides have realised that bio-fuels were a costly mistake.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 4:07pm
Pete George

that AGW is an interesting hypothesis, but it is a long way from a proven theory.

I agree with that – it doesn’t mean, as some say, that all climate science is junk, it simply means there is a lot yet to learn and to determine. And what is eventually proven, if it can ever be proven, could be any of negligible effect, negative effect, or positive effect.

One thing is certain – mankind will one day be on the brink of doom. Technology or new found resources will not keep giving us a new lease of life forever. The odds are it won’t worry any of us in our lifetimes. The sun should still rise tomorrow.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 4:30pm
jinpy

Herman
“The political lobby of big business is behind AGW, BP et al have many investments and marketing around renewables.”

Then how come BP funds anti AGW ? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers).

“Most deniers are interested in scientific veracity”
Not true — lots of these people pick a small thing (urban heat islands, sun spots etc) and make it sound like a convincing and deal-breaking argument against AGW when its not. They fail to report evidence that does support AGW and they often resort to cheap tricks to convince a willing audience (showing things out of context, selecting only parts of data, etc.)

For example, many AGW skeptics cite this book by an Australian geologist Prof Ian Plimer as a grand destruction of AGW theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Earth_%28book%29).

But have they gone point by point through this rebuttal by Ian Enting? (http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf; Summary: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/)

This rebuttal shows that Plimer has made basic errors in physics, has used misleading graphs and labels, has included references which do not in fact support what he is saying.

Can you refute the rebuttals to Plimers book?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 4:40pm
Herman Poole

One thing is certain – mankind will one day be on the brink of doom. Technology or new found resources will not keep giving us a new lease of life forever.

The only thing that will do it is the Sun Pete. Life on Earth has been going on for half a billion years, every single resource on Earth has been used but ta dah! Its all still there. Mankind will never ‘deplete’ Earth’s resources.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 4:43pm
Herman Poole

Herman
“The political lobby of big business is behind AGW, BP et al have many investments and marketing around renewables.”

Then how come BP funds anti AGW ? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers).

Most big lobbyists give to both sides. The headline of that article says $240,000. The money BP put into AGW and renewable energy is multi millions.

“Most deniers are interested in scientific veracity”
Not true — lots of these people pick a small thing (urban heat islands, sun spots etc) and make it sound like a convincing and deal-breaking argument against AGW when its not. They fail to report evidence that does support AGW and they often resort to cheap tricks to convince a willing audience (showing things out of context, selecting only parts of data, etc.)

For example, many AGW skeptics cite this book by an Australian geologist Prof Ian Plimer as a grand destruction of AGW theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Earth_%28book%29).

But have they gone point by point through this rebuttal by Ian Enting? (http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf; Summary: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/)

This rebuttal shows that Plimer has made basic errors in physics, has used misleading graphs and labels, has included references which do not in fact support what he is saying.

Can you refute the rebuttals to Plimers book?

You are choosing who to identify as representing ‘the other side’, there are people with sub normal IQs and genius IQs on both sides. I could choose to take the fools as representing AGW, but that would make me a fool.

I have never read Plimers book or know anything of Plimer’s ideas or position both and it forms no part of my position on AGW.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 4:50pm
jinpy

Admittedly a small amount of money. I’m sure there’s more that’s out there but perhaps Ive reached a little into conspiracy theory 101…

“I have never read Plimers book or know anything of Plimer’s ideas or position both and it forms no part of my position on AGW.”

The point wasn’t about your views on AGW it was about deniers and their scientific veracity. I’m not finding someone with sub normal IQ, he’s a professor in geology, and I bring him up because his views are quoted as examples of anti-AGW by some people.

The other interesting point is the difficulty some people have in conceding even a single point, or half-point. It indicates their views are pretty much set in stone.

There is plenty in what I have posted today that you could acknowledge as true but you seem to think its all ‘vastly wrong’ or whatever. Even when I make the effort to post something compelling proving my point about disinformation, you move and defend a different position.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 5:10pm
Pete George

Mankind will never ‘deplete’ Earth’s resources.

Depends on what you mean by “deplete”. We have certainly depleted a fair amount of stored energy resource, and converted a lot of other resources so it’s unlikely they’ll be as useful again.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 5:11pm
tom hunter

Meanwhile – in a world far, far removed from Alaska hunting and Cancun fantasies – one of the most incompetent US presidents ever struggles to hold his Democratic lame-duck Congress together to stop taxes increasing on January 1.

So hopeless that he could not even sell a piece of Clintonian triangulation as such to compensate for totally pissing of his base.

I think the GOP should have just let the Democrats twist in the wind. After all the Democrats (especially the left-wing of the Democrats) are the ones who are utterly convinced that the scheduled end of the tax cuts is a great idea. Let them live with the consequences that a “reality based community” was built for.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 6:05pm
Herman Poole

Depends on what you mean by “deplete”. We have certainly depleted a fair amount of stored energy resource, and converted a lot of other resources so it’s unlikely they’ll be as useful again.

Where did those energy resources come from Pete?

BTW, we have probably explored 0.0001% of the Earths Crust.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 6:32pm
Herman Poole

The point wasn’t about your views on AGW it was about deniers and their scientific veracity. I’m not finding someone with sub normal IQ, he’s a professor in geology, and I bring him up because his views are quoted as examples of anti-AGW by some people.

The other interesting point is the difficulty some people have in conceding even a single point, or half-point. It indicates their views are pretty much set in stone.

There is plenty in what I have posted today that you could acknowledge as true but you seem to think its all ‘vastly wrong’ or whatever. Even when I make the effort to post something compelling proving my point about disinformation, you move and defend a different position.

You possibly don’t understand the relevance of various issues. Most of them are of no concern for me, and I probably agree with them.

The major fact that prevents me from going along with AGW theory is that interglacials, and in particular the most recent one, reach temperatures of 4 degrees warmer than today and sea levels 8 metres higher. Do you dispute this fact?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 6:37pm
Fletch

A guy in the US changes his name officially to “Captain Awesome”, eg, the character in the TV show Chuck –

What’s one way to make sure nobody forgets your name? Change it to Captain Awesome.
A US man did just that after he was inspired by a character on TV.
Douglas Allen Smith Jr, 27, had his name officially changed last month after he went to court to prove it wasn’t a prank, the Register Guard newspaper reports.

Smith, now Awesome, was inspired by the character Dr Devon “Captain Awesome” Woodcomb on NBC’s TV show Chuck.
“I thought it was really funny that Devon’s father always called him Captain Awesome because ‘a poor nickname builds good character’,” Awesome said.
But officially changing his name was not easy, he said.

According to Awesome, the Lane County judge who heard his initial request in an informal “ex-parte” hearing, questioned his seriousness.
The judge allegedly told Awesome to hire a lawyer to make a formal argument for the new name.
But Awesome was not put off and, after researching previous name change cases at the University of Oregon Law School Library, he went back to argue for the new name himself.

The next judge to hear Awesome’s request had something in common with him: his old name, Douglas.
“The first thing he said to me was that he thought Douglas was a perfectly honourable first name,” Awesome said.
“I thought, ‘Oh my goodness I’m screwed.'”

But after making Awesome swear he wasn’t changing his name for fraudulent reasons, Lane County Circuit Judge Douglas Mitchell granted his new name.
Mitchell also allowed Awesome to change his official signature to a right pointing arrow, a smiley face and a left pointing arrow.
But Awesome said his bank has refused to accept his new signature.
“They said it was too easily forgeable,” he said.

LINK
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 8:11pm
Jimbob

It seems NASA may have jumped the gun on their “Arsenic in DNA” findings. There are scientists questioning their findings, when they gave details of their experiment. Oh dear, there will be more to come on this fiasco. Aren’t these the same people who say we are going to experiance catastrophic Man made global warming. I think they need to sack their PR person.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 8:44pm
Tauhei Notts

I heard Winston Peters on National Socialist Radio this evening making his submissions on the Foreshore & Seabed bill.
As I listened to him I was reminded of a lothario from years ago who remarked;
“Women, if you press all the right buttons they will work for you.”
Winston, as a politician, has this impression that if he pushes all the right buttons the voters will vote for him. And, boy oh boy, did he ever press all the right buttons today. Winston is back and you had better get ready for him. That is not good for the future of our country.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:18pm
emmess

This retard is a New Zealand delegate at Cancun
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/06/cfacts-kook-of-the-week-at-cancun/#more-28980

Who is he?
Who paid for the stupid fuck to go over there?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 10:28pm
Luc Hansen

Herman Poole wrote:

The major fact that prevents me from going along with AGW theory is that interglacials, and in particular the most recent one, reach temperatures of 4 degrees warmer than today and sea levels 8 metres higher. Do you dispute this fact?

Why should we dispute this, Herman? Here is a quote from James Hansen:

[Note: there are no mean global temps available from the past interglacials – I’m sure even Herman understands why – but ocean temperature allows us to infer mean global temps, you know, science ]

[Glacial to interglacial temperature changes are typically 3-4°C in the tropics, of the order of
10°C at the poles, and about 5°C on global average.]

“Business-as-usual” greenhouse gas emissions would cause global mean temperature to
rise by at least 2-3°C this century, even without full accounting of “slow” feedbacks such as
forest movement. Thus Figure 1 shows that continued “business-as-usual” greenhouse gas
emissions would yield global temperature this century far above that in any interglacial period in
the past million years.

And Herman, while it’s true that some argue that the interglacial 425,000 years ago had sea levels about 8 metres higher, that is totally irrelevant in today’s world. How many humans were around 425000 years go? How many humans were around 125000 years ago? Get real. Even a one metre sea level rise today inundates the homes over around one billion humans.

Also, the cause of past interglacials is well known, and relate mainly to orbital settings. Plus they occurred very, very slowly. This warming is coming upon us like a freight train in the dark.

But then, do you actually give a fuck about your fellow humans and future generations, anyway? I suspect not.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:02pm
Guy Fawkes

“Jeez, English rugby is sad, even the amateurs from Portugal have a better test try scoing record than England does against the ABs.”

Words that I will happily make you eat when the best team in the World stutters, and completely chokes allowing a surprise victory from the men in white.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 8, 2010 11:56pm
Herman Poole

And Herman, while it’s true that some argue that the interglacial 425,000 years ago had sea levels about 8 metres higher, that is totally irrelevant in today’s world. How many humans were around 425000 years go? How many humans were around 125000 years ago? Get real. Even a one metre sea level rise today inundates the homes over around one billion humans.

Also, the cause of past interglacials is well known, and relate mainly to orbital settings. Plus they occurred very, very slowly. This warming is coming upon us like a freight train in the dark.

But then, do you actually give a fuck about your fellow humans and future generations, anyway? I suspect not.

Sea levels have been rising throughout the history of civilisation and before. They are many underwater archaeological sites:

http://heritage-key.com/blogs/sean-williams/top-10-underwater-archaeology-sites-around-world
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 12:17am
Luc Hansen

Herman, so what?

No one says we haven’t had higher sea levels in the planet’s past. But we weren’t around then and there weren’t about one billion of us living with 1m of sea level rise.

And those previous interglacials were caused by well known reasons, natural climate change, this warming is caused through fossil fuel emissions.

You talk about 8 metres, but in fact, if BAU carries on for much longer, over centuries we are looking at 60-70 metres sea level rise.

The callous response is that we will adapt, and we will, but at what price? How many billions will die? Will nuclear war become the new norm?

The exploits of the most famous mass murderers of history, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Churchill, Truman et al will will pale in comparison to the approaching catastrophe. We will just add your name to that list, Herman.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 8:47am
Luc Hansen

Solid Energy is the new Public Enemy No 1?

Their fatuous claims of carbon mitigation are “commercially sensitive,” it says. We now why, don’t we? It’s because the technology is unproven and, even if it becomes proven, simply passes on the pollution to future generations.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 8:59am
pollywog

UMBRELLAS UP…froth froth

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4438237/Sammy-Wongs-search-for-roots-linked-to-factory-visit-train-deal

Translation : SAMMY and PANSY WONG = SYSTEMIC PERK ABUSERS !!!

and yes, you’d still have to be a total fuckwit to think otherwise and an even bigger one ( if thats at all possible) to think it’s muckraking to continue to search for the truth on this matter…

we deserve so much more than what Huge McPhailure could be bothered unearthing and wayyy more accountability from Key as leader in charge of keeping his house in order. be nice to see that smirk wiped of lockjaws face for once

ZERO FUCKING TOLERANCE !!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 9:06am
sbk

Hey Luc,

“More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore “…

->thus from a Nobel Prize Winner..

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

->and your definition ..

– Scientists (deniers)
Gain greater exposure for stating denying views than mainstream scientists stating mainstream views — denial in the face of the mainstream is actually a tempting stance in terms of human psychology. Some benefit financially through book sales, some are supported by big business. Some speak on areas they are not qualified in and do not admit their errors when rebutted. Get a lot of attention and opportunities.

My question to you Luc..if a Nobel Pize winner in Physics is not a mainstream scientist then what exactly is ?.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2010 12:01pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The super age

Assange arrested »

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

Automakers’ Costly Gamble on EVs: A Lesson in Ignoring Consumer Demand
Utopia
Hey Razor – What The Hell Is Going On With The All Blacks
No Minister
END GAME
The Standard
MEDIAWATCH: Q+A – Jack Tame destroys David Seymour
The Daily Blog
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Treaty Principles Debate
NZCPR
Much ado about cussing…
Point of Order
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
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
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