About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

May 4, 2013 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 4 May 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment184

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (184)

Login to comment or vote

Johnboy

Scoff as you will Griff. I do suspect that he is probably both of our combined intellects superior.

However, don’t let my opinion reduce the size of your tiny ego in any way of course! 🙂
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:20pm
Griff

Touchy there john boy

That’s not good news 🙁
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:23pm
Johnboy

He’ll be right. Even 911 couldn’t lower him! 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:30pm
Kea

Thanks for the alarmist movie clip Griff. I always enjoy those “end of the world” movies. I could not find anything to match your offering, so here is a boring bit of science instead 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfMM3bVbhQ
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:34pm
Nostradamus

Johnboy:

I see a lowlife visited your neighbourhood:

A Hutt teenager was arrested overnight after sexually assaulting two women during a burglary in Wainuiomata. … He fled the house after other occupants awoke to find him and called the police.

What were your sheep doing in the house? 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:43pm
wat dabney

Avert your eyes Griffy boy. The grown-ups are talking about science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:44pm
Manolo

Hard to swallow for Cameron & co: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4913419/nigel-farage-hails-ukips-remarkable-local-election-night.html
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:49pm
Griff

Well done kea who pays professor bob carter and what are his scientific credentials?

It would be just a coincidence that he is discussed in the article already posted pointing out the source of you views.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:49pm
Kea

wat dabney (2,650) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Avert your eyes Griffy boy. The grown-ups are talking about science.

Wat, are you sure this guy is a real “scientist” ?

He does not have that hysterical frantic shrill manner that many “climate scientists” (weathermen) have.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:52pm
wat dabney

“Well done kea who pays professor bob carter and what are his scientific credentials?”

You see, Griffy?

When you grow up perhaps you’ll understand what a funny little twerp you are right now.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:56pm
Kea

Griff (4,713) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Well done kea who pays professor bob carter and what are his scientific credentials?

No idea who pays him Griff. No doubt you will now entertain us with a BIG OIL/Carbon Industry conspiracy. But now YOU have claimed scientists can be influenced by money, I have some questions:

1. Who pays the IPCC ?

2. On what basis are they funded ?

3. Would the IPCC and its many staff and contributors exist if they admitted AGW did not exist ?
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 4:59pm
Kea

How are you going with those questions Griff ?

You have had about SIX FUCKING MONTHS to answer them 🙂

If there is a problem, just say. Perhaps we can help.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:10pm
Griff

Bop carter

Credentials

Ph.D., University of Cambridge, Palaeontology, 1968.
B.Sc. (Hons), University of Otago, Geology, 1963.

Expert credentials for a paleontologist or oil geologist back in the eighties.
leading edge or influential in any field except climate change denial. no.

Linked to
New Zealand global warming education trust.
who as we know were found by a court of law to be incapable to past judgement on climate science.
The Heartland institute………

Trotting out little old men from the denial networks is not effective in combating the might of all scientific bodies and government in the world sorry kea.

Its called a false argument from authority.

As is talking about a 2.5%winter ice pack increase in Antarctica contra a 40% decrease is summer sea ice in the arctic a straw man.

Quoting an unnamed journalist tail of a sea captains experience of ice in a small region proof of a excess of ice at that position is hearsay not worth shit in a debate over science

Your inability to give any evidence beside empty rhetoric from the denial network for you tale of money and greed driving the science is a prime case of conspicy thinking:wink:.

Of interest to you may be the fact that the total spent by the ipcc on scientific research is zero.
2 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:20pm
wat dabney

“ Its called a false argument from authority. ”

Perhaps you should look at your posts earlier in this thread, son?
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:24pm
Kea

Griff (4,714) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Bop carter

Credentials

Ph.D., University of Cambridge, Palaeontology, 1968.
B.Sc. (Hons), University of Otago, Geology, 1963.

Expert credentials for a paleontologist or oil geologist back in the eighties.
leading edge or influential in any field except climate change denial. no.

Thanks Griff for that misrepresentation. It shows everyone how much credibility you have. How about answering my questions ?

Robert M. Carter

Carter began his career as an assistant lecturer in geology at the University of Otago in 1963 and advanced to senior lecturer after obtaining his Ph.D. in 1968. He was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University from 1981 to 1998, an adjunct research professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University from 1998 to 2005 and a visiting research professor in geology and geophysics at the University of Adelaide from 2001 to 2005.

He has published over 100 research papers on climatology, geology, marine biology, palaeoecology and paleontology.

Carter is a founding member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, an emeritus fellow and science policy advisor at the Institute of Public Affairs,a science advisor at the Science and Public Policy Institute, and the chief science advisor for the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

He has served as chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateway).

Carter has been a member of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, the Geological Society of Australia, the Geological Society of New Zealand and the Society of Sedimentary Geology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter

The link will take you to many published peer reviewed papers by Prof. Carter
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:30pm
Griff

Kea (3,946) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 5:10 pm

How are you going with those questions Griff ?

You have had about SIX FUCKING MONTHS to answer them 🙂

If there is a problem, just say. Perhaps we can help.

You have been answered on you wingnut question at least four times kea dont blame me if you dont realize that the ipcc is not smeging paying climate scientist or have anything to do with the academic discipline of climate science its a un panel that evaluates existing climate science.

Total Straw man in a discussion about the facts of climate change funding is your answer.

As too fucking months.
my partner has monthly cycles like most human females and I get mostly fucking days. As we are getting older any interest of making a mess during some days 😉 is not contemplated as there is some what less urgency involved in the entire procedure.
I would suggest if you have fucking months you should go to the vet and have the actual species determined.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:37pm
Kea

Of interest to you may be the fact that the total spent by the ipcc on scientific research is zero.

LOL 🙂

So what DO they spend all those millions on Griffy old chum ?
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:37pm
Harriet

“…..Trotting out little old men from the denial networks is not effective in combating the might of all scientific bodies and government in the world sorry kea….”

Simply putting on a white lab coat does not transform ordinary human beings into totally incorruptible, completely neutral, fully objective, and totally rational super-beings either Grief! 😎

Some of the things scientists come up with most normal people would find just too hard to swallow. On such occasions they have clearly taken leave of their scientific senses, and instead simply have both feet planted firmly in midair.

“Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists”.

As reported in the Guardian, here is how the story begins:

“It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

“Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

“This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by scientists at Nasa and Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

“Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa’s Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity ‘prepare for actual contact’.

Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis, the researchers divide alien contacts into three broad categories: beneficial, neutral or harmful.”

Indeed, it might be far wiser to say that we should put scientists into three broad categories: beneficial, neutral or harmful. In this case, it seems that harmful is the most obvious category for these fruitloops. Delusional might be another category. Or just ‘plain fucken whacko’.

And we are all supposed to bow down and worship at the altar of science when these folks come up with zingers like this Grief/
Atheists like Dawkins regularly chide people of faith Grief, claiming they are out of touch with reality and living in la la land. We are instead to put all our trust in science, he and others insist.

If this bizarre episode is not an example of just that, then I don’t know what is Grief.
The sad truth is Grief, science is not the saviour, scientists do not have all truth, and scientists can and do get it wrong – often.

Appreciate science – yes, within proper limits. But hold up science as the end all and be all, and the only fount of knowledge and truth? Sorry, not me. It often takes far too much faith to hop on board the latest “scientific” bandwagon.

And besides Grief – I would rather deal with reality, not science fiction. 😎
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:44pm
Kea

Harriet, Griff disregards independent scientists, regardless of their qualifications and experience, if they do not support AGW.

Instead he quotes AGW scientists who are believers. This is equivalent to quoting “creation scientists” in support of God. Yet Griff claims to be an “atheist”.

You theist folk can have Griff back. We atheists don’t want him 🙂
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:51pm
SGA

Ahhh… the good old days –
http://www.essentialmums.co.nz/family-life/family-dynamics/8625086/Kids-in-bad-vintage-ads
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:51pm
wat dabney

“ Instead he quotes AGW scientists who are believers. ”

More than than, he excuses the blatent fraud that they churn out. He is, for example, the last person I know who claims that the notorious Hockeystick is an accurate climate history.

It’s like he’s jumped into a hot-tub time-machine and gone back to 1995.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:54pm
Griff

Independent scientists

Would that be scientist that have no direct link to the oil industry kea or the denial industry.

Unfortunately for your parrot chess he is in no way independent
He also is in no way knowledgeable or an expert on climate science
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 5:55pm
wat dabney

“ Would that be scientist that have no direct link to the oil industry kea or the denial industry. ”

blahblahblahblahblah

Baby needs a lesson in the scientific method.
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:00pm
Kea

Griff, so those scientists you quote do not benefit in any way financially from the multi trillion dollar AGW industry ?

Your lying.

The IPCC chief is a Railroad Engineer [retired]. The other day you quoted medical doctors in support of AGW and rather a lot of others outside the field. You claimed they understood science, so their opinions were valid.

Yet you discount a real scientist with peer reviewed published papers in the field. Lets see you explain that…
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:05pm
wat dabney

Weird how Griff would rather talk about anything except the science…
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:06pm
Redbaiter

Can’t you guys just leave that boring proselytizer Grief to his faith?
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:07pm
Harriet

“…..You theist folk can have Griff back. We atheists don’t want him …”

Back ?

God never made people like Grief – even you Atheists believe that! 😎
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:07pm
nasska

….”Unfortunately for your parrot chess”….

Not like this surely Griff? 🙂

Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/i4vzdsucrvh6z0b/parrotschess.png
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:17pm
Johnboy

Lovely leg of Mutton for dinner tonight.

Second time I’ve eaten her! 🙂
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:19pm
Griff

http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://0.static.wix.com/media/f49aec_9bd8e51e40bf77e9ff1225518dff3271.jpg_1024&imgrefurl=http://www.texastimebomb.com/?_escaped_fragment_%3Dpin-me-up&h=720&w=576&sz=96&tbnid=B3myaX2ZZPCteM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=83&zoom=1&usg=__zYeJbWsAyqDFraoo1ht6qkG3TzU=&docid=A9C-nqshAOYXiM&sa=X&ei=5KiEUbyLJI-fiAfzwoCIAQ&ved=0CF4Q9QEwCA&dur=66
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:21pm
nasska

Thanks Griff….that’s more like it! 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:25pm
Kea

Griff, you claim where scientists get their money from is relevant. You suggest this can influence their findings.

1. Who pays the IPCC ?

2. On what basis are they funded ?

3. Would the IPCC and its many staff and contributors exist if they admitted AGW did not exist ?

AGW scientists rely on AGW hysteria for their sole source of income. Without it they are unemployed weathermen and do not get to influence global policy. No money and no power. They are just some geeks who work in an obscure sub branch of science that can not make any sort of reliable or useful prediction. Not much call for that is there ?

Oil companies make their money from… Oil. And the world can not get enough of what they sell.
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:26pm
wat dabney

Yes, and I’ll keep pasting it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQsM6u0a038
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:30pm
Griff

You have been answered on you wingnut question at least four times kea dont blame me if you dont realize that the ipcc is not smeging paying climate scientist or have anything to do with the academic discipline of climate science its a un panel that evaluates existing climate science.

comprehension f
ability to check facts f
ability to separate fact from fiction f

We have no hope of kea ever achieving any academic ability
He lacks the simple critical thinking skills and we suggest his future would best be employed as a window licker

ipcc
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UYSumUolSho

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:47pm
wat dabney

Griff,

Give it up son.

Come back to us when you have something substantial to say, eh?

And that means scientific evidence, not establishment propaganda.
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:50pm
Judith

Griff (4,718) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 6:47 pm
——————————

Further more the IPCC is funded directly from the Governments who are affected by its findings. It is sort of the opposite to the Industries that pay the scientists to find evidence disputing global warming. In this case those that are affected financially in a negative manner by global warming, actually pay for the research to be completed by more than 130 IPCC scientists.

The findings are put through one of the most highly recognised systems of authentification – that of extensive peer review – in which scientists from both sides of the Climate Debate are able to contribute – more than 2500 of them. After that it goes through a process where review editors consider the comments made by the peer reviewers. If any differences emerge, the authors are then made to meet with the review editors etc.

Following this process the report along with all comments, including those from the peer reviewers, and review editors are sent to various governments for governmental reviews. Again the process of comments from the Govts are reviewed with input from all parties. Then the lead authors prepare revisions in response to scientifically valid comments, and encourage reviewers and other experts to resolve any remaining major differences by communicating directly. The resulting document is then submitted to the working group’s plenary session for consideration and acceptance.

It is acknowledged as one of the most vigorous review processes available, and far more intensive than anything produced by global industries.
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 6:59pm
Kea

Hay Griff, I hear what your saying. The IPCC does not do science. ( I had noticed that actually) 🙂

But of course I never asked that. So once again….

1. Who pays the IPCC ?

2. On what basis are they funded ?

3. Would the IPCC and its many staff and contributors exist if they admitted AGW did not exist ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v4Q9Wv10Ho
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:05pm
Griff

Real climate is a website authored by some of the worlds leading climate scientists.
the establishment if you like.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/ice-hockey/#more-15171

This link discusses two papers on the west antarctic ice sheet collapse presently taking place.
The peleo records also further support of the hockey stick so robustly defined by two recent papers.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

And no wat blog scientist who dont publish have not “destroyed” any of this work.

Its just the usual echos in an empty chamber of denial.
1 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:07pm
Judith

Kea (3,952) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 7:05 pm
————————

Your answers are above. They are paid from the contributions from Governments.

They are funded to provide research to the UN who then provides it to governments – who then make policy decisions regarding the various factors revealed in the research.

Yes, the IPCC and its staff would exist if global warming was proven to be false. The same ‘staff’ are qualified to give advice on all types of weather phenomena or are you now going to argue there is no such thing as ‘weather’ ?
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:10pm
Griff

kea watch your link to the end sometime penn and teller admit they dont know and just hate algore
The clip is from 2008 they have since officially changed their views
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/06/penn-amp-teller-quot-bull-quot-artists-get-ready-to-change-their-quot-skeptical-quot-stance-on-climate-change.aspx
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:20pm
Steve (North Shore)

“Lovely leg of Mutton for dinner tonight. Second time I’ve eaten her! ”
Well she still has two legs left Johnboy, you’re gonna need a Govt subsidy for her imobility soon.
Then it will be the ribs – save the brain til last 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:24pm
Viking2

Panicking NZ climate scientists go for the doctor – predict nearly half-metre sea level rise PER DECADE!

Forget about the UN IPCC’s upcoming AR5 climate change report, their colleagues in New Zealand’s Antarctic Research Institute have gone the full Chicken-Little and are predicting sea level will rise 4cm per year, or a whacking great four metres per century.

http://bit.ly/11IwOwv
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:28pm
Kea

Griff,

1. Why do Thermometers (used to measure temperature) not show any warming?

2. Why do Thermometers show record cold in the Northern Hemisphere ?

3. Why is the warming so freezing cold ?

4. Why has the warming caused record sea ice in the Baltic this year ?

5. Why is the warming causing no warming ?
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:36pm
Judith

Viking2 (9,355) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 7:28 pm
—————————–

So you wouldn’t advise investing in a beach house on the foreshore at Omaha then?

I do note they only say that will be the case if we continue to increase our bad habits. They do not say it WILL happen, but it could happen… bit of a difference there. 😉
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:38pm
Kea

Yes, the IPCC and its staff would exist if global warming was proven to be false.

This makes a change from “think of the children”.

Conclusive evidence women should not be allowed the vote 🙂
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:40pm
Judith

Kea (3,954) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 7:40 pm
———————————-
Not so Kea. You see even without global warming, there are sufficient extreme weather conditions occurring to require the services of the same experts – therefore, their knowledge would still be required as such weather conditions are placing global humanity under adverse conditions of which there is no recent history from which to draw advice.

Research is still required regarding the likelihood of future adverse weather events
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:45pm
Kea

Viking2, Judith said if you “repent” and denounce your evil ways Gaia the Earth Mother will not cause a great flood.

On your knees boy and pray to the prophet Gore.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:47pm
Viking2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZI1eeV88lQ&feature=player_embedded#!
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:49pm
Johnboy

If you buy a beach house at Omaha Judith I’m happy to come along and indulge in really bad habits with you just to see what sort of climatic disturbance we could generate.

I’ll bring my sheep if you like! 🙂
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:54pm
Griff

Sorry to upset you v2
That is similar to the conclusion found in the two papers in my link to real climate.
Don’t read it if you are a pessimist.
It also has potential extreme effects on our climate in the medium -ten to twenty year term.
ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/ice-hockey/#more-15171

1. Why do Thermometers (used to measure temperature) not show any warming?
2. Why do Thermometers show record cold in the Northern Hemisphere ?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2013&year2=2013&base1=1970&base2=1999&radius=1200&pol=reg
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

4. Why has the warming caused record sea ice in the Baltic this year ?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:55pm
nasska

Who cares what it’s called….it keeps a few scientists off the dole. 🙂

Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rbenrp4meo1ii17/Climate.jpg
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:56pm
Kea

Judith,

1. What has the IPCC predicted that has been of any use to anyone ?

2. Why did they not predict the series of freezing winters in the North, that have killed hundreds and disrupted economies ?

3. Why did the IPCC predict the total opposite and say that winters would be increasingly mild ?

4. Why did they not predict the 17 year non-warming ?

They have done nothing to help anyone other than themselves and the advance of socialism. They are tied into the UN, which is a global socialist organisation. (in between raping kids and watching genocides)

They are weathermen and nothing more. It is well accepted the long term economic and climate forecasts are useless due to the variables. Better minds than mine have worked on very complex models to predict both, with no success. I remember reading this before it became un PC to question AGW. They would never admit this about climate forecasts in a academic book now days, even though it is self evidently true.
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 7:57pm
nasska

Two film directors are talking about a colleague.

“You know he fucks the stars of all his movies,” says the first director.

“Well, come on,” says his colleague, “we all do that.”

“Yeah, but he makes animal documentaries.”
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:00pm
Kea

Griff here is some more “Science” for you :

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

http://www.icr.org/article/177/

And Griff, don’t waste my time rebuking the creation fact, unless you can show me peer reviewed (by creation scientists) published studies that align with the consensus of other creation scientists.

This is fun 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:06pm
Judith

Johnboy (10,485) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
——————————

I would take you up on your offer, but you see our dear PM also has a beach house at Omaha, and two sheep are not going to be enough for him and his ‘minders’. It would be bad manners not to include them – any chance of getting the whole flock?

Just let him know by txt – “flock off – wether event cancelled”.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:09pm
Viking2

Griff, posted it just for you.
I don’t do fairy stories.

The video was apt. Exploding bullshit.

Kea, Does Ryall do new knee’s for all the Gore Giaia prayers.

Still got mine, au natural. Bit creaky mind so don’t want to wear the knee caps out by kneeling on the floor.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:10pm
Judith

Kea (3,957) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 7:57 pm

—————————-

They are ‘weathermen’ (according to you) commenting on the weather – and you are a ??? commenting on the weather.

From where I’m sitting, I see one group a hell of a lot more qualified to comment on the weather than you.
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:12pm
Kea

Viking I hope you are not a capitalist. That would never do !!!

Global warming is real, and caused by capitalism
Socialism needed to save the environment

http://pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/global-warming-is-real.html
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:13pm
Viking2

Judith (2,405) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 8:09 pm

Johnboy (10,485) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
——————————

I would take you up on your offer, but you see our dear PM also has a beach house at Omaha, and two sheep are not going to be enough for him and his ‘minders’. It would be bad manners not to include them – any chance of getting the whole flock?

Just let him know by txt – “flock off – wether event cancelled”.
——-
We could all come just so long as YOU DO NOT INVITE, any LAWYERS in PINSTRIPE SUITS THAT WRITE LETERS OF APOLOGY for someone else.
We couldn’t stand putting up with pious pricks like that.
Still we don’t belong to the National Party, simply not refind enough. More fun. 😆
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:14pm
Viking2

Ha johnboy, not capitalist enough.
My mothers watering down of my gene pool. Made me a softy. Thats the good side of me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:16pm
Judith

Kea (3,957) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 8:06 pm
———————

You really don’t understand the peer review process do you? 🙂
1 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:17pm
Kea

“From where I’m sitting, I see one group a hell of a lot more qualified to comment on the weather than you.”

Yes you are right. That is why I listen to scientists.

What to you do to inform your opinion Judith ?

(I could point out that my predictions have been more accurate than the weathermens at the IPCC)
2 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:17pm
Kea

Judith, peer review is a joke with AGW. Anyone who disagrees with the theory is outcast and attempts made to discredit them.

So the only peer review is from fellow believers. Further more, any one who does not agree still remains on the list of scientists who support the finding ! (because they reviewed it)

It is a bit like a totally false rape complaint still goes towards stats for rape.
5 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:23pm
Pete George

The reality:

Global warming was to blame for super storms that killed hundreds of people last year, and record levels of ice thaw in the Arctic, the United Nations has warned.

As national representatives meet in Bonn, Germany, for the latest round of climate change negotiations, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) issued its latest report on the damage attributed to global warming.

The annual summary, which will inform policymakers around the world, confirmed that 2012 was the ninth warmest year on record.

The global average temperature in 2012 was 0.45 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1961 to 1990 long term average of 14C .

Although this was a relatively small increase compared to previous years, leading to suggestions that global warming was “slowing down,” it continues a steady upwards trend. Last year was the 27th consecutive year with an above-average global temperature.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/03/global-warming-caused-super-storms-says-un/

Evidence is still strongly pointing towards some real concerns.
2 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:28pm
Judith

Kea (3,959) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 8:17 pm
——————————-

You will note I do not converse on specific points of the climate debate because I do not know much about them, however I do know a lot about research standards and the peer review process. The IPCC is highly regarded for its peer review process which is seen to be one of the most competent and efficient throughout academia.

There is also a certain degree of commonsense applied to existing knowledge – hence my comment regarding the fact that the scientists currently employed in GW research would still be required if there was no such phenomena. The fact is, the same qualifications are required for many other subjects of scientific research – so to use the point you did was rather ignorant.

In comparison – a person that mines coal is of course going to be negatively affected and therefore would ‘encourage’ research to support his industry because he would be unable to continue his business without it.

Global warming scientists are qualified to deal with other phenomena, and therefore would not be out of work should their research disprove their thesis. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know that much.
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:31pm
Pete George

And…

White House warned on imminent Arctic ice death spiral

National security officials worried by rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice overlook threat of permanent global food shortages

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/02/white-house-arctic-ice-death-spiral

There’s no news that everything’s ok with the ice and the climate.
2 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:34pm
Judith

Kea (3,960) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 8:23 pm

——————————-

Like I said, you know nothing about the peer review process.

The scientists do not ‘ask’ people or select those that will review their work. To do so would completely make the peer review process invalid.

I suggest you do inform yourself on the process of peer review and do not get muddled by what some ignorant people, such as one of our ministers recently referred to as ‘peer review’ when it wasn’t. A peer reviewer is NEVER selected by those responsible for the research.
1 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:39pm
Griff

Yes the ipcc is shit bureaucratic nonsense kea
Unfortunately their errors are on the side of caution.
They underestimated both arctic ice melt and sea level rise by a large degree.
However their temperature predictions are still within the margin of error still statistically significant.
The extremes of weather are not surprising for someone who has read any science about this subject.
Your localized extremes of cold are more than balanced by other regions extreme warmth.

It is time NOW for us to start confronting the reality.

I have gone from a casual interest to convinced and very concerned due to the amount of research I have done in the last couple of years on kb.
Both the effort by the oil lobby to discredit science and the concerns of the climate scientist are real and obvious to anyone with an open and inquiring mind.
1 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:51pm
nasska

Come on Judith….each of the bludgers is dependant on the others not to rock the gravy boat. The entire farce is just one big circle jerk aimed at promoting global socialism & wealthy scientists.

You preview mine & I’ll preview yours…..that’s how it works! 🙂
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:55pm
RightNow

Peer review? Gergised.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 8:57pm
Judith

nasska (6,231) Says:
May 4th, 2013 at 8:55 pm
—————————–

I don’t deny that what you say does happen, however the peer review process doesn’t just allow those with such agreements to review such reports. Any ‘peer’ is able to do so – and I have yet to meet a scientist – or in fact a person that is liked 100% by everyone. There is always someone around who wishes to prove you wrong, and/or take over your particular place in any given field.

All sciences are competitive – there is always someone wanting to prove you wrong – and of whom will not buy into such contracts as you mention. That is why the peer review process is reasonably efficient – one cannot pick who takes part in it (unfortunately). However the whole process allows and encourages progress, which is after all what the whole exercise is about.
1 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 9:06pm
Judith

I also forgot to point out the one very obvious aspect of the peer review system that makes it more reliable – the fact that it is anonymous (although some do take part in open peer reviews this is not the usual and widely accepted method).
1 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 9:13pm
nasska

Judith

Under normal conditions you are correct…..in engineering or medicine there are ample separate entities & funding channels to make peer review a fairly useful tool.

Not so with climate science funded only by taxes extracted from us by socialists dedicated to redistributing the earth’s resources. The latter intend to use “carbon” taxes to screw down the “rich” west & develop new commie fiefdoms. With such high stakes the AGW sympathetic scientists are lavished with our money but there is one catch….

They all have to sing from the same songbook…. otherwise the sheep awaken & the venal scientists are lined up down at WINZ.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 9:16pm
Kea

Ok Griff,

Tell me what we should do about AGW then?

I have asked this question before. The only reply I got was from SPC. He suggested money should go from rich white people to poor brown ones. His answer was wealth redistribution. (Global Communism).

Do you have anything practical to suggest ?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 9:22pm
Griff

Stop burning hydro carbons now.

Unfortunately this is not possible.

We Have to reduce our reliance on hydrocarbons.
.
The sooner we start the better of we will be in the future.”

Once there was a war

two country’s very much destroyed successfully built new infrastructure and leapfroged the rest of the world.

Japanese and German industry become powerful in part because of this new infrastructure.

China and the developing world are not going to have the same overhang in obsolete technology as the west has.

If the west does not transition to carbon free high tech world we will be left behind.

If the world does not manage this transition humanity’s future will be in doubt by 2050.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 9:43pm
krazykiwi

Kea, he’s fun sport mate, but a lost cause.

Griff’s comments are part blind dogma, part lies and part unwillingness (inability?) to debate.

I watched these comments get longer and longer from inclusion of increasing numbers of unsubstantiated claims, random links, and ad hominem’s.

Point-by-point, evidence-based refutation is ignored, only for the same lies to be trotted out a couple of days later. His repitition of the “97% of climate scientists agree…” lie is case and point.

I blame the weed, but I’m quite happy for him to forge ahead as the Hiroo Onoda of the climate debarcle.

With each banal post readers become more aware of the idiocy of the climate scam.

Keep posting Griff. You’re doing the world a service 🙂
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 10:10pm
Griff

krazykiwi

you made the usual claim that the survey was bullshit
would you like to revisit the argument

You say only that only 78 were interviewed by asking two questions correct?
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 10:17pm
krazykiwi

No griff, you have repeatedly claimed that ‘97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming’

My challenge to you is simple: Prove this claim to be statistically accurate.

When you can’t/won’t/don’t, we can move onto the other lies and obfuscations that you repeat around here.

Now, I’m off to bed so you should have plenty of time with Wikipedia and RealClimate to formulate your reply. So, in your own time …
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 10:27pm
Griff

My challenge to you is simple: Prove this claim to be statistically accurate.

Oreskes and Peiser
Doran 2009
Anderegg 2010

Still its a massive red Herring from your wingnut conspicy …..eh
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 4, 2013 11:48pm
slijmbal

For years all biologists got the number of human chromosomes wrong despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Thalidomide passed testing

Y2K was a problem – not

Martian had canals

infections were caused by bad air

Rutherford did not believe relativity was true

stomach ulcers are caused by stress

All of the above (except Rutherford) were to all intents and purposes universally held beliefs by the scientists of the day

That’s just from the top of my head
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 5, 2013 1:03am
Kea

slijmbal, Einstein included the non-existent cosmology constant in his equations and did not believe in plate tectonics.

If scientists were like Griff, no theory would ever be challenged once it was established. We would be sitting in the trees picking lice out of our hair.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 5, 2013 1:39am
Griff

If Luddites like you prevail we will go back to the savanna and pick kutys.

Yes science gets it wrong.

Would you like to bet your children’s world on it 😈

because a lot of science would have to be very wrong to make it probable that continued burning of fossil fuel will not be catastrophic

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm

To prevent the most severe impacts of climate change, the international community has agreed that global warming should be kept below 2ºC compared to the temperature in pre-industrial times. That means a temperature increase of no more than 1.2°C above today’s level.

To stay within this ceiling, the scientific evidence shows that the world must stop the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 at the latest, reduce them by at least half of 1990 levels by the middle of this century and continue cutting them thereafter.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 5, 2013 1:59am
Judith

The Climate scientists are criticised heavily by people like Kea who would like to be able to plunder the planet for everything its worth and too bad for the next generations (we all know his caring opinion of women and children).
However it is not only the climate scientists that give the same warnings Griff does.

Here is a small example I know of:

Whangateau Harbour was known as one of the most ‘pure’ and efficient harbours in NZ. It demonstrated good flushing and was a nursery for many fish species such as snapper. It also produced varieties of shell fish which have been harvested by humankind for centuries. It borders areas that have now become the ‘playground of the rich’ i.e. Omaha, Matakana and Point Wells.

A few years ago the locals noticed the shell fish in the area were starting to die and were in short supply. Within a very short time the large majority, including entire species died off completely.

Archeologists were able to prove that shell fish supplies from the area had never been effected in this manner during human occupation of NZ. The Goat Island Marine Lab (Auckland University) is close and so marine biologists were able to examine the phenomena. They were also joined by horticulturalists (the area is surrounded by market gardens etc) and agriculturalists etc, even plumbers joined in the debate.

There were several issues found:
Firstly, that one particular shell fish species which had died off completely had done so from a bacterium. This type of bacterium had NEVER been found to effect shell fish before.
Secondly it was found that sewerage levels in the harbour were extreme due to inefficient sewerage catchment in the residential areas surrounding the harbour.
Thirdly it was noted that the temperature of the water in the harbour had risen sufficiently to allow the bacterium to effect the shellfish where as previously the cooler temperatures had prevented this.
Fourthly it was noted that run off from forestry and farming in the area was silting up the harbour and preventing adequate flushing and providing excessive mangrove growth.
There were other things such as pollution, damage by boats and over harvesting mentioned as well.

But the main point was, that the harbour was dying. Whilst I’m sure someone will argue we can do without shell fish, the fact is that they are an important part of the ecological chain. As mentioned Whangateau harbour is a nursery harbour – without it functioning correctly – fish supplies are seriously effected.

What happened at Whangateau was a direct result of Global Warming, pollution and over-use by humans.
The scientists and people involved were not ‘weathermen’ (although I believe Jim Hickey has holidayed in the area), they were not climate scientists – they were marine biologists, and other professionals not related to the science of climate research. Auckland University and the Auckland Regional Council all took a lead role in the research, and there was eventually some input from NIWA.

So, my question to you Kea and the likes – how does this fit with your argument that such events are ‘constructed’ by GW scientists and do not really exist – when anyone familiar with the Whangateau harbour could see for themselves the destruction, and especially when it is in the best interests of the ARC not to ‘buy into’ the GW debate because it has cost them, and will cost them more in the future to remedy this issue.

It certainly does not fit with the model you state of people ‘inventing’ phenomena to provide an income for the research they do.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 5, 2013 8:18am
m@tt

@slijmbal
Interesting you should include Y2K in there. Y2K was a problem which was averted due to recognition of the impending issue and a concerted effort to fix code that would have caused disruption had it been left unchecked. I know, I was involved in developing fixes at the time.
The issue was addressed so well that it leads people with little to no knowledge of the problem to the mistaken belief that it was never a problem in the first place.
In the same manner, if we manage to reduce the effects of human induced climate change it also will result in the uninformed believing there was never a problem to begin with or that it was over-stated.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 5, 2013 10:31am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The Nation 4 May 2013

The Press Power List »

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

More lawlessness from National
No Right Turn
Point of Order: Buzz from the Beehive - 15/11/24
Breaking Views
Shock & Surprise: Lawyers oppose removal of lawyers' gravy train
Not PC
Trumping the Electric Vehicle Mandate
Utopia
Seymour’s bill split the House – but (as is shown by the 68-54 vote after an ill-tempered debate) not “down the middle”
Point of Order
Thankfully we said nope to dope
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Daily review 15/11/2024
The Standard
MEDIAWATCH: Willie Jackson’s fiery speech that had Gallery cheering
The Daily Blog
Government only partially adheres to Waitangi Tribunal order, as tensions heat up
No Minister
Sowell says
Hompaddock
A NEW DEGREE COURSE FOR MASSEY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
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