About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

March 4, 2013 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 4 March 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment131

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (131)

Login to comment or vote

RightNow

You got it Kea, the climate is on the take from Big Oil. Those alarmists were right, it’s a conspirawhacky!
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 8:51pm
RightNow

Pete, every time you link to one of those blogs a United Future voter switches their vote.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 8:54pm
Griff

Actually ross wingnut that is the same link you have posted five times. it does not quote anyone and has no biases in fact. as I said link to the statement not some opinion piece in a newspaper .

Here is a game for you nutjobs:lol:
wing nut bingo
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/03/31/wingnut-bingo/
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 8:54pm
RightNow

Griff (4,375) Says:
March 4th, 2013 at 8:54 pm

Actually la la la la la I can’t hear you ‘cos I’ve got my fingers in my ears
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:03pm
nasska

Nice troll Griff. 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:03pm
axeman

[sigh] It’s not easy being green these days, especially if you’re a die-hard doomsayer of the global warming persuasion (that’s you gwiffucknuckle). Arctic ice has made a comeback, advancing so rapidly that the previous decade saw less ice at this time of the year than exists today. And previously balmy Arctic temperatures just nose-dived, according to the Danish Meteorological Institute, which has tracked Arctic temperatures since 1958.

Alarmists shudder when looking south, too, at the stats from Antarctica. There the sea ice extent started growing early this year, and the ice cover remains stubbornly above average. All told, the global sea ice — including both polar caps — now exceeds the average recorded since 1979, when satellites began their measurements.

Disasters are another disaster for the doomsayers, as documented in an October article by University of Colorado-Boulder Prof. Robert Pielke Jr., one of the world’s foremost experts in disasters and climate change. “Flooding has not increased over the past century, nor have landfalling hurricanes,” he reported. “Remarkably, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane.”

Pielke went on to note that the U.S. has seen a decline in drought over the past century, and that “Over the past six decades, tornado damage has declined after accounting for development that has put more property into harm’s way.” Similar conclusions apply to typhoons in China, bushfires in Australia, and windstorms in Europe. High-profile weather events have always and will always be with us; they just haven’t been as fateful of late. Moreover, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change earlier last year agreed that long-term climate change can’t be blamed for damage from extreme events.

The Holy Grail of proof to most doomsayers, of course, is the temperature, which global warming models insisted would rise in lock-step with increases in carbon dioxide. When the temperatures started to plateau in the late 1990s, doomsayers scoffed at the skeptics who noted that the models failed, taking comfort from the global warming leadership who explained every which way that the skeptics were torturing the statistics to falsely show warming had stopped. Now the leadership itself — the U.K.’s Met Office, NASA’s Jim Hansen, and the IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri — all admit to temperatures having reached a standstill for the better part of two decades.

The lowly global warming believer (that’s you again gwiffucknuckle) is left with little but the promises from their leaders that, sooner or later, those temperatures will rise again. 🙂

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/28/lawrence-solomon-not-easy-being-green/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:17pm
Griff

Actually I always wait for the nutters to post first
its so easy to set them off almost as easy as winding the god squad
I run a news feed on climate science and global warming as well as subscribing to the SS comments section so have read the rubbish and refuting of it well before the nutbars have 😆
Posts from nutbars are so full of holes its amazing their little brains dont explode with the contradictions.
Still fuckwits and the sheepie are sooooo stupid. do you know that the less educated the more likely you are to believe the rubbish they post
http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/climate-security-report/
One of the most significant challenges to the global security system in the 21st Century will be a changing climate; the effects of these changes are already being felt all over the world. Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States through its effects on our global allies as well as its direct effects on our agriculture, infrastructure, economy and public health.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:19pm
RightNow

so you’ve read this already griff?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/green-weenie-of-the-week-rajendra-pachauri.php

what about this?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/24/yes-we-should-defund-the-u-n-s-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/

And how’s the lovely Gergis doing these days? Has she got her paper accepted back into the journal? What about Lewandowsky and the paper he had rejected?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:21pm
UglyTruth

its all about making fun of conspirowhacky nut bars like you fruit loops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cnWO5KT8IhI
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:24pm
Harriet

Griff…..do like mango salsa?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:29pm
Griff

Actually axenuckle when you start using my language it shows me that I really get up your nose.
nutbars tm fruitloops tm and axenuckle tm

Twenty years how times fly in the nutterverse only last month it was fifteen.
pity that the warmest year on record was 2010 followed by 2005
In fact the last ten years have been the warmest on record followed by the ten before etc
As to not paying attention to rubbish why would any sane man read rubbish that is obviously crap and think that it is science.
Only in the world of fruitloop denial does a opinion piece count as science
13950 papers support the scientific consensus on climate change twenty four dont
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:29pm
cha

its all about making fun of conspirowhacky nut bars like you fruit loops

http://youtu.be/AcS3NOQnsQM
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:32pm
Kea

I run a news feed on climate science and global warming as well as subscribing to the SS comments section…Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States …

Nothing obsessive there folks & nothing extreme.

And the cheeky bugger calls those of us who accept the evidence “nutters” !
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:37pm
Kea

UglyTruth (258) Says:
March 4th, 2013 at 9:24 pm
its all about making fun of conspirowhacky nut bars like you fruit loops

Forget “chemtrails” check this crazy shit out 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNBQd_Hpdio

Kinda sad some folks believe this
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:46pm
Griff

Forbes the Australian and the daily mail same old same old. As I said the story is in the echo chamber yet has no reality behind it just rewrites of the original opinion piece from the Australian with no proof for the alleged quote.

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.

Kea no matter how much you squawk the science still goes against your nutbar views.
The science says global warming nutbars says no
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:49pm
RightNow

I’d miss him if he ever left though Kea, he’s the grifft that keeps on giving. Our very own Karl Pilkington
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:49pm
Kea

Griff, what happens to the funding if they admit AGW is false ?

Have you researched the market for unemployed and discredited weather men recently ?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 9:55pm
Kea

The AGW industry was started (and generously funded) by Margaret Thatcher, to stick it to the unionist coal miners and promote Nuclear energy as a safer option. She set them up to “prove” coal and oil were unsafe.

The IPCC are paid hacks and activists. They are not considered proper scientists by informed people.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 10:02pm
axeman

Nah GRIEF as I have explained before, we all take great pleasure at laughing at your prepostorous dedication to the ALARMISM hoax. 🙂

You are the team bitch when it comes to the global warming scam debate so that is why you can only froth at the mouth with your inane and often illiterate claims.

BTW are you up to date with the credibility of your mates at Skeptical Science? Just like you, John Cook and his psych sidekick Dr. Stephan Levandowsky are big on conspiracy theory studies as a tool to smear skeptics, and are quite certain that climate skeptics are mentally aberrant, even though they never give skeptics a chance to vote in their horridly self serving and skewed surveys.

And the charming Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) secretly conversing with his SkS pals on their off limits forum (which either got hacked or was left open by their own incompetence) said “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”. The Viet Cong comparison is a nice touch too. There’s talk of convening a “war council” too.

And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.

Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.

..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

[As quoted by Geoff Chambers in this Bishop Hill thread. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html?currentPage=2#comments ]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 10:11pm
Griff

The problem for you is who is going to discredit mainstream science

That you keep calling climate scientists weathermen shows your stupidity. The only weather man I have seen quoted is A Watts and he is already discredited.

Face it cult thinking is the denail nut jobs you worship. The cult of anti science is alive and well with you and your fallow travelers being the cultists.

Hows the no warming going have you made it to thirty years yet?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
gee its not in the records so it must be real …..eh……I read it in the newspaper !

Ugly truth and chem trails 😆
rightnow kea and watwat with agenda 21 and commie plots to rule the world.

Whackhead wingnuts all together in conspirowhacky
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 10:11pm
RightNow

Oh joy, a trend calculator. What’s this? A 10 year cooling trend in ALL land-ocean indexes….

Where’s the missing heat boy? Fetch…
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 10:21pm
Kea

Griff your the conspiracy nutter. You are obsessive:

“I run a news feed on climate science and global warming as well as subscribing to the SS comments section ”

You rant on about BIG OIL and the fictional “carbon industry” when ever a scientist disagrees with you. You have claimed that these evil forces are conduction an “experiment” on us. Even the IPCC has admitted to the fact there has been no warming for nearly two decades.

Muppet !
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 10:21pm
Griff

fuckin spinners
NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 11:31pm
RightNow

IPCC does not represent consensus: Cook says that the IPCC guys are leaders and that the reports are too conservative. That’s, of course, nonsense in both cases. First, the IPCC is being elected by the governments – because it’s an “inter-governmental panel” on climate change – e.g. by politicians whose vast majority has no idea about science, and not even about the question who is a good scientist and who is not. They’re clearly choosing scientists according to their willingness and likelihood to produce the predetermined conclusions. Concerning the “conservative IPCC reports”, it’s a preposterous statement because every single problem that has been found about the IPCC report as of today was in the direction that the IPCC was more hysterical than what the science says – it was never in the other way around.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 11:57pm
RightNow

Satellites show no warming in the troposphere: He agrees but claims it’s an error, due to “satellite drift”. Well, again, inconvenient observations have to be doubly attacked, questioned, and an error has to be found. It’s a biased treatment. The fact is that the tropical troposphere should show, if the greenhouse model of warming is correct, the fastest warming trend. In reality, it shows one of the slowest trends and it’s very likely that the right interpretation is that this observation by itself rules out the greenhouse model of the recent warming. It’s surely inconvenient for fanatical believers but this emotional fact doesn’t make this argument less convincing from a scientific viewpoint.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 11:58pm
RightNow

Climate sensitivity is low: The fact is that the direct calculation gives 1.2 °C and all balanced analyses of the Earth’s history, including very old geological data, suggest that this is about right, i.e. the net feedbacks are small, with an unknown sign. All papers or claims going to 3 °C or higher are fabricated and cherry-pick something to “hype” this number that almost certainly can’t reach 3 °C. The promoted positive feedbacks may be viewed as a quantification of the hype, exaggeration, and fraud: 70 percent of the IPCC figure for the climate sensitivity is fabricated because a higher value is favored by the “big picture” of the political process.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 4, 2013 11:58pm
RightNow

Models are unreliable: Cook says that models have made predictions that were successfully compared to observations. Except that this is not enough for the models to be reliable. For them to be reliable, it would have to be the case that the models have produced no predictions that were inconsistent with the observations – because one wrong prediction is enough to falsify a model. Clearly, such falsification has taken place with all of them. In particular, all IPCC-endorsed models predicted a warming since 1998 that didn’t occur. They’re gone. Again, both sides agree that we can’t rely on them. Kevin Trenberth agrees that the disagreement of the models and the data is a travesty. There are hundreds of recent examples showing how deeply flawed the existing IPCC-endorsed models are.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 5, 2013 12:00am
Griff

Funny right now if all major scientific bodies the un and governments endorsers the consensus view on global warming you go to nut job denial sites and believe the spin.
repeatedly trying to convince your self now 😆
what a nutter
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 5, 2013 6:02am
Manolo

The resident pot-head will be disappointed by the opposition to this nutter: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/04/obama-to-announce-energy-epa-leaders-ap-source-says/
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 5, 2013 6:07am
Manolo

No science to back it up. Just a hack’s piece to keep gullible fools like Griff happy, very happy: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/8379157/Climate-change-link-to-Australian-heatwave
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 5, 2013 6:35am
Griff

Dear dear right often this is Kevin latest work
seems your source is fucked as usual
http://www2.cgd.ucar.edu/future-warming-high-side
The climate models that most accurately captured these complex moisture processes and associated clouds, which have a major influence on global climate, were also the ones that showed the greatest amounts of warming as society emits more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 5, 2013 9:01am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« To list on ASX or not?

Not being rushed through »

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

D-day for the government
No Right Turn
How would NZ Labour do using this vision
Utopia
15 YEARS AGO: Now a more bigoted state
Not PC
Upheaval in the House after haka holds up vote on Treaty Principles Bill – and one Maori Party “no” vote was not counted
Point of Order
Daily review 14/11/2024
The Standard
TDB Daily Reading List 14th November 2024 – Best NZ Left, Independent and Progressive Politics opinion daily reading list
The Daily Blog
A NEW DEGREE COURSE FOR MASSEY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Greenpeace And The Green Party Would Never Tell You This About Penguins.
No Minister
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
“Trans & Pregnant” – Biology trumps gender ideology
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
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
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
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