About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

December 9, 2012 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 9 December 2012

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment147

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (147)

Login to comment or vote

Nostalgia-NZ

big bruv

I put my foot in there.

Go along with your remedy as well.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:16pm
Manolo

Griff, a former unionist? Good grief!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:17pm
wat dabney

mm,

That seems to be an entirely different claim, supposedly related to numbers of peer-review articles. It says nothing about your phony claim about a consensus of scientists.

Remember, the main bombshell that came out of the Climategate scandal was how the charlatans had conspired to pervert the peer-review process.

Why would you now cite peer-review as a sign of anything at all?

But more importantly, why would you trust those charlatans who you know conspired to pervert science like this?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:17pm
mikenmild

Reddy, we don’t call them trade unions any more coz we don’t have any trades. We have human resource management instead of industrial relations. Get with the programme, son.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:18pm
mikenmild

wat dabney
I know no such thing. If you have a problem with peer-reviewed science, you are welcome to come up with another mechanism to test your ludicrous theories.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:19pm
Manolo

Wonderful multiculturalism in Australia: http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/new-australians-of-modern-kind.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:20pm
Redbaiter

“Griff, a former unionist? Good grief!”

Yeah, and like the retard he is he’ll be back next week with the same damn lame question.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:26pm
mikenmild

You a cricket fan Reddy? Or is too much of a collective activity for you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:31pm
Pauleastbay

The first thing I would do would be to ban the term “batters” from the game. There are no such thing as batters in cricket.

The next thing I would do is cut all funding for shelia’s cricket, they simply cannot play the game. There would be far more test cricket and a hell of a lot less T20 and ODI crap.

Oh…and nobody from Canterbury would ever be allowed in the test team.

As a plan going forward for NZC thats perfect,no complaints here and just when did “batter ” enter the vernacular? Its batsman, simple. Its also the New Zealand Mens Cricket team, not the” Black Caps”.

He clearly has a decent background in the game.

. I’m sorry but what the fuck? I have a decent background in the game, he’s meant to have a proven track record as a coach and forgive me but Otago is not a proven background in the game From cricinfo

In his six years in charge of Otago, he converted the previously struggling team into one which regularly challenged for titles, and ended their 20 year wait for a trophy by winning the one-day tournament in 2007-08…

Sorry all, I can now see the how his career is running parallel to Ted and Alex.

People are forgetting that Henry had a succesful, (that means winning things) coaching record spanning years at the helm of the mighty Auckland Rugby Union Football team and his first move wasn’t to give Grant Fox the arse, that was another Otago plonker called Laurie Mains that did that
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:34pm
wat dabney

“I know no such thing.”

You are ignorant of the subject then.

Not a crime, but I suggest you find out something about the issue before posting again.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:36pm
Griff

Ask the nutters a easy question and all they mumble is a corrupt climate scientist
Explain conspirawhackys how the rest of the scientist as represented by the professional scientific organizations As diverse as the royal society and the national academy of science are included in the hoax
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:40pm
Redbaiter

Here’s another example of the crap that goes on, where pro Climate Justice liars maneuver their way into leadership positions and then pervert the names of respected organisations to their cause, against the wishes of the members of that organisation-

“A group of nearly 50 very prominent NASA scientists and astronauts has issued a public letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., requesting that NASA stop supporting unsubstantiated claims of manmade global warming.”

http://www.policymic.com/articles/6804/50-former-astronauts-and-scientists-denounce-nasa-stance-on-global-warming
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:45pm
Reid

This might be interesting to some, or maybe not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlRi-K3FIPk&feature=related
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:45pm
Fletch

cha etc etc – “peer reviewed” is a joke when it comes to the IPCC and climate change.

It turns out that it’s an oft-told lie that all the references in the Climate Bible are “peer reviewed”. After an audit by Donna Laframboise of Toronto and a team of bloggers, it turns out that only 58% of the references mentioned have been peer reviewed.

The other references (around 5,500 of them) are from so-called ‘grey literature’. Some are based on articles from popular magazines with no research behind them whatsoever. So, 1 in 3 references aren’t peer reviewed. After this was pointed out to them, the IPCC decided not to mark ‘grey’ footnotes at all now – so now nobody will know anyway.

Also, some of the papers used in reports aren’t even published at all at the time.

The whole thing is a disaster. No one even polices that the IPCC is following their own rules. It’s no wonder people are rapidly losing faith in them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:46pm
Griff

Ask the same question

Yes until one of you freaks can actually answer with the rest of your nutty conspirawhacky

How do YOU NUTTERS explain the involvement of government and international organizations,.
Are You saying the whole science community are corrupt or cannot tell fact from fiction.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:48pm
Reid

Explain conspirawhackys how the rest of the scientist as represented by the professional scientific organizations As diverse as the royal society and the national academy of science are included in the hoax

Research funding.

Yawn.

Crikey Griff.

Don’t you know anything?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:49pm
Griff

Still no answer
Too much cognitive dissonance

No it our government.

The UN .

All major scientific bodies.

The governments of most of the world.

Including all the developed countries.

Everyone is well past, is it happening or not? They just cannot agree on how the cuts in co2 will come.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:52pm
Longknives

“The first thing I would do would be to ban the term “batters” from the game.”
Well said that man- It does my head in hearing people refer to the likes of Tendulkar as a ‘Batter’. He doesn’t play at Yankee Stadium!

And TV news tonight referred to Martin Crowe as a “former Black Cap”. He was never any such thing- He was a former New Zealand Cricket Captain (and a great of the modern game).
It would in fact be more accurate to describe him as a ‘Former Young Gun’ – but that’s another matter entirely….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:54pm
Reid

Griff I just told you. BTW, it’s hard to talk to someone with their hands over their ears and whose shouting lalalalalalalalalala in an attempt to pretend not to be able to listen.

Would you like to talk about why research funding is the answer to your question, or would you rather pretend you didn’t hear it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 8:54pm
cha

Donna ‘degree in women’s studies’ Laframboise, you have got to be fucking kidding me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 9:00pm
nickb

I’m damn glad to say I wouldn’t watch one of those examples of PC liberal bullshit.

Hank Moody is a staunch libertarian RB
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 9:18pm
Fletch

cha, the author of your article states,

First, I didn’t read the book because, honestly, I could barely make it through the terribly written Fox News piece.

That about says it all really. And yes, where are the experts in their fields that should have been consulted on such an important and world changing subject? Well, they’ve been left out because they don’t agree with the official consensus.

eg –

Robert Watson, who chaired the IPCC for the five years before Pachauri took over, also says the “IPCC engages thousands of the world’s best experts.” Media outlets have repeated these assertions time and again. But such claims are bogus. For starters, some of the world’s most experienced experts have been left out in the cold. In 2005 an atmospheric science professor from Colorado State University named William Gray told a US Senate Committee:

Despite my 50 years of meteorology experience and my many years of involvement in seasonal hurricane and climate prediction, I have never been asked for input on any of the [IPCC] reports. The reason he wasn’t invited to the party, he says, is because he doesn’t think global warming causes more (or stronger) hurricanes. “They know my views and do not wish to have to deal with them.”

Six months prior to Gray’s testimony, an expert on the other side of the Atlantic was raising his own concerns before a committee of the British House of Lords. Paul Reiter knows little about atmospheric science. What he does know is the field in which he has specialized for more than 40 years – diseases that are spread by mosquitoes. According to him, the people who’ve been writing about those diseases in the Climate Bible are not experts. While a large portion of the health chapter in the 1995 edition dealt with malaria, Reiter points out that

“not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject!” Only those with limited knowledge of this field, he says, could have produced such “amateurish” work. For example, the Climate Bible said malaria-transmitting mosquitoes usually don’t survive in areas where winter temperatures drop below 16°C (60°F). Reiter says that’s nonsense. We now associate malaria with tropical locales, but poverty and an absence of health care are important factors. Hawaii, Aruba, and Barbados are all tropical, but malaria isn’t a problem there. On the other hand, in the 1800s thousands died of malaria in North America and Europe – even in Siberia.

[footnote 3-2] It’s the same story with sea levels. The former president of a Commission on Sea Level Change, Nils-Axel Mörner, also addressed the House of Lords committee. Mörner, who has 40 years experience in his field, called attention to the disparity between what genuine sea level specialists think and what those who write IPCC reports believe. Those in the second group, he says, lack hands-on expertise. Instead, they attempt to predict the future via mathematical formulas that have been fed into computers (computer modeling).

Mörner told the House of Lords that, between 1999 and 2003, genuine sea level experts held five international meetings to discuss the available real-world evidence. They concluded that sea levels are unlikely to increase by more than 10 cm (4 inches) by the year 2100. Mörner says the claim that sea levels are rising quickly – or that entire island nations are in imminent danger of drowning – are simply not true.

Dr. Gray, the hurricane specialist, resides in America. Dr. Reiter, the malaria expert, works at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Dr. Mörner is the former head of a geodynamics unit at the University of Stockholm, in Sweden. Each of them possesses highly specialized knowledge. Each of them is a seasoned professional with long experience in his field. They are, in other words, exactly the kind of people you’d expect to find at the heart of an organization comprised of world-class scientists examining one of the planet’s most important questions. But they are all IPCC outsiders. This suggests the IPCC defines top scientists and best experts differently than do most of us.

Laframboise, Donna (2011-10-09). The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (Kindle Locations 132-136). Ivy Avenue Press. Kindle Edition.

So yeh, experts are left out in the cold, while grad students write many of the reports the IPCC uses.
Also, as can be seen from the Climategate emails, many studies that go against the AGW ‘consensus’ are stifled. The climategate emails show some of these so-called ‘scientists’ writing to scientific journals that have published reports they don’t agree with, attempting to get the editors of those magazines fired (and in some cases succeeding).
And good luck if you’re a scientist who wants a grant and whose view is not in agreement with AGW. You won’t get funding unless you agree with it.

The whole thing is a total scam.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 9:29pm
bereal

Wake up call for poor old Griff. @ 8.48 (posted with the understanding that Griff can’t/wont get it, ever)

Go with the money Griff.
Imagine,

You’re a ‘scientist’, you want government money to fund your ‘research’

You have latched onto a gravy train, “global warming,’ then.’Man made global warming’
Apgw, then when that comes under attack, change your tune to, “climate change.”
Invent hockey sticks and computer predictions till the cows come home to beat it up,
there is no money in the other side.

There are two types of scientists, those who promote the above and secondly those who say
this is all bullshit, it’s just natural change.

Which type of scientist receives funding ?

Guess what, its the scaremonger, Apgw promoter. (Al Gore et al has milked silly idiots like Griff to the max)

Get it Griff ?

Didn’t think so.

Greenland is cold now, it used to be called Greenland because that is what it once was.

Please do not respond to this post Griff.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 9:33pm
bereal

Fletch, just read your post above.
Well said.
Onya.

Funny how some lay people can have a modicum of common sense and an ability to
think for themselves and then we have drongs/ drones like Griff and Luc Hansen etc,
who will go to bat with all their might and die in the ditch against common sense.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 9:45pm
Kea

Griff reckons those who oppose climate lies and doing it for the money. Apparently we are all paid by the oil companies. I wish 🙂

…annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period…The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included

Remember this is in one country (the USA). Globally it is a multi trillion dollar industry. It is little wonder that any scientist who questions AGW is instantly attacked and discredited, by those who profit from the climate lies.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 9:49pm
Kea

If any one doubts how fanatical and crazy climate alarmists really are, then check out this link. Click on anything you like and have a laugh at what is being sold to us as “science”.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 9:58pm
bereal

Now, there we have both Fletch and Kea talking plain common sense.

Wait for the attack. And it will be a personal attack. if it comes.

These man made global warming suck it up drongs will one day soon realise that they have been used
and manipulated
by others far smarter than they are. They have ben sucked in because they cannot think for themselves.

Course, even when the truth finally dawns on them they will never be able to bring themselves to admit it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:01pm
Griff

Griff (3,650) Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Still no answer
Too much cognitive dissonance

No it is our government.

The UN .

All major scientific bodies.

The governments of most of the world.

Including all the developed countries.

Everyone is well past, is it happening or not? They just cannot agree on how the cuts in co2 will come.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:09pm
Kea

I have real concerns over what will happen when the truth is more widely known. Firstly I am concerned that real environmental issues may not gain public backing. Secondly, the credibility of science, in general, will be called into question.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:09pm
RF

Someone over in Labour appears to have pushed the self destruct button. The Standard is buzzing like a beehive and It all centers around the DN Labour MP, Clare Curren who is thought to be dumbing down the bloggers who frequent the standard. From memory she was the one that Mallard leap frogged over a local candidate to get the nomination. Everything Mallard touches turns to shit. When will they ever learn. It is interesting that Shearer has apparently stuck his head up his arse to avoid confrontation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:11pm
Kea

All major scientific bodies.

The governments of most of the world.

Including all the developed countries.

Everyone is well past, is it happening or not?

Griff, more people believe in God, than AGW. Far more. Does that make God real ?

If not, why ?

Of course your lying too. “Everyone” clearly does not believe in AGW. You also fail to address the issue that your sources are paid billions to produce “studies” that support the AGW fraud. Wow, pay me that sort of money and I might “believe” in AGW too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:16pm
bereal

Poor old Griff,
doesn’t warrant a response, but, just for fun.

This idiot refers to his own post @ 8.52 truly pathetic.

Hey Griff, why not demand an answer to the question, “How long is a piece of string ?”

Why not demand an answer to, “Yeah but, why is a mouse if it flies ?”

Then, when you don’t recieve a sattisfactory answer you can crow about how you won the argument.

Moron.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:19pm
cha

Fuck Yeah, as with the moon landings, Bilderberg, the second shooter and the Illuminati, the anti-Christ led Marxist liberal one world UN sponsored CC conspiracy being foisted upon an unknowing sheepulace is so well constructed that only a select all knowing un-sheeply few can see the truthiness.

And the truthiness is unlimited funding for academia!.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:24pm
bereal

And one last question Griff can use to win his argument,

“What is the difference between a duck ?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:26pm
Griff

You are on to it cha at least your cospiriwhacky has more than the evil scientist are stealing the funding 😆
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:29pm
Kea

During the Jurassic period, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were in the neighborhood of 1,950 ppm – five times the concentration of today’s modest 385 ppm. During that period, the earth flourished in the fertile embrace of life-giving CO2.

Now here is where it gets interesting. When we burn fossil fuels we are only returning co2 to the atmosphere. We are not creating new co2. Of course sensible people understand that this tiny contribution (of co2) is unlikely to even be detectable, in terms of climate change.

cha, keep up the personal attack and lies. The more alarmists, who show their true character, the better it is for those of us who value truth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:33pm
Redbaiter

“only a select all knowing un-sheeply few can see the truthiness. ”

Gosh, the ignorant communist thug Cha actually comes out and says something in his own words for once, and of course, its a lie.

Its not any kind of “few.”

The predominant public opinion now as shown by so many public polls is that GW is a scam.

Its only the Progressive political class that still push the propaganda, and their influence is fast dwindling as their Potemkin village burns faster every day.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:35pm
Kea

So Griff; Is it your ,belief that all that money for research, all that public recognition, all of that personal profit, has no effect at all on “climate science” ?

Your really pretty green if that is what you think.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:36pm
bereal

Poor old Griff.
Failed English, primmer three.
WTF @ 10.29
Time for another bevvy mate.

Too dumb to get it that you were having the piss taken out of you ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:39pm
Kea

Its only the Progressive political class that still push the propaganda

Studies have revealed that the biggest predictor of belief in AGW is a persons political leaning. Nothing at all to do with knowledge of science.

Why can’t cha, luc, mm etc, just be honest and say they hate capitalism, or want to protect the environment?. Why cant they just be honest about their real motives ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 10:43pm
Ryan Sproull

Studies have revealed that the biggest predictor of belief in AGW is a persons political leaning. Nothing at all to do with knowledge of science.

Why can’t cha, luc, mm etc, just be honest and say they hate capitalism, or want to protect the environment?. Why cant they just be honest about their real motives ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 11:13pm
Kea

I made no ad hominem attack in my post Ryan Sproull. It may pay to read your own link.

Here is an example of ad hominem attack, from climate liar, cha”

“Fuck Yeah, as with the moon landings, Bilderberg, the second shooter and the Illuminati, the anti-Christ led Marxist liberal one world UN sponsored CC conspiracy being foisted upon an unknowing sheepulace is so well constructed that only a select all knowing un-sheeply few can see the truthiness.”

See the difference ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2012 11:22pm
Ryan Sproull

Kea,

Ad hominem fallacies aren’t always as obvious as “you’re an idiot, so you’re wrong”. Asserting that someone is wrong because they have ulterior motives for making a claim is still an ad hominem fallacy – you’re playing the man, not the ball.

It’s similar to someone saying, for example, “You just believe in God because you’re afraid of dying.” That may well be the case, but it has no bearing on the strength or validity of that person’s arguments for God’s existence.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2012 10:17am
Manolo

Griff, what do your former unionists colleagues think of your AGW gullibility?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2012 10:41am
Griff

Still waiting for the nutiods to explain how the governments of the world have been sucked into the great co2 myth.
Cha is the only one who has had a crack at the unified theory of the great global warming conspiracy.
It looks stupid under the light of day. But that is bassicaly what you nutiods belive.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2012 11:15am
RightNow

I believe the satellite record.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

Can you say “cooling”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2012 11:20am
Griff

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NCDC_Escalator.gif

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) also showed that when the influences of solar and volcanic activity and the El Niño Southern Oscillation are removed from the temperature data, the warming trend in the NCDC data shown in the updated Escalator is 0.175 +/- 0.012°C per decade. Quite simply, contrary to Briggs’ claims, the warming trend is much larger than the uncertainty in the data. In fact, when applying the Foster and Rahmstorf methodology, the global warming trend in each of the major data sets is statistically significant since 2000, let alone 1940.

Ultimately Briggs completely misses the point of The Escalator.

“…just as the WSJ‘s scientists claim, we can’t say with any certainty that the temperatures have been increasing this past decade.”

This is a strawman argument. The claim was not that we can say with certainty that surface temperatures have increased over the past decade (although global heat content has). The point is that focusing on temperatures over the past decade (as the fake skeptics constantly do) is pointless to begin with, and that we should be examining longer, statistically significant trends.

Briggs’ post was of course hailed by the usual climate denial enablers (i.e. here and here), despite the rather obvious inflation of the data uncertainty, and utter lack of support for that inflation. Despite the fake skeptic struggles to go the wrong way down, The Escalator unfortunately continues ever-upward.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2012 11:26am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The prank call tragedy

Will NZ First break their own rules? »

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

Sowell says
Hompaddock
Coal Use Hits Record High in 2024 Thanks to India and China
Utopia
Great Work überwachen Polizei
No Minister
JUDITH COLLINS NAIVETY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Warning from the Maori Party – no, it’s a threat – to fast-track applicants
Point of Order
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
NZCPR
Government sabotages its Emissions Reduction Plan
The Standard
Submission on the Treaty Principles Bill
The Daily Blog
"... a broader, decade-long 'crank realignment' in American politics."
Not PC
2024 OIA stats
No Right Turn
Jacinda’s “Act” of kindness has increased abortions 23%
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
About Syria.
Kiwipolitico
Orr on Q&A – Part II
Croaking Cassandra
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 8
Stats Chat
Misuse of land use planning
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d