About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

January 18, 2015 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 18 January 2015

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment216

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (216)

Login to comment or vote

cha

Bugger!.

SpaceXVerified account ‏@SpaceX

Close, but no cigar. This time.

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/556131313905070081

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2015/20140116-falcon9-rapid-unscheduled-disassembly.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:00pm
Nostradamus

Pete:

I don’t know if you saw my comment in yesterday’s general debate thread.

You generate a high noise-to-signal ratio at The Standard – you contribute “signal” and they respond with “noise” designed to drown you out.

So, as constructive debate is difficult if not impossible, I really don’t know why you waste your time there.
8 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:04pm
Pete George

Reid – one of your funnier efforts. I think I’ll frame that one.
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:05pm
Pete George

Nostradamus – I have my reasons. It’s similar to here at times. Comments are only a part of the game, and local trolls don’t matter much apart from being sometimes fun, and sometimes useful.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:11pm
mikenmild

Nostradamus
Could you direct me to a blog comments section where constructive debate IS possible?
2 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:13pm
Pete George

What predictions wat?
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:17pm
Nostradamus

Mikenmild:

You could always pop over to Pete’s blog.

Your NZ – Reason, Reasonable, Robust

🙂
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:18pm
Manolo

Rest assured the socialist sadists at The sub-Standard enjoy the presence of a fence-straddling masochist.
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:20pm
wat dabney

What predictions wat?

The computer models on which the whole AGW alarmism is based generated predictions of future temperatures.

If the global temperature did indeed increase in accordance with those predictions over the last 20 years then that is evidence to support the theory (though not conclusive, of course.)

On the other hand, if temperatures didn’t correspond to those predictions then the theory has been falsified. End of story.

That’s how science works.

So if you maintain, as you do, that there is ‘compelling science’ for the AGW theory it follows that you have sound evidence demonstrating that the computer models’ temperature predictions were fulfilled.

So I am simply asking you to show us that evidence.
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:29pm
Pete George

The computer models on which the whole AGW alarmism is based generated predictions of future temperatures.

You need to be specific. There’s been many computer models that have continually been developed concurrent with ongoing research and data collection.

You must know which models you’re talking about. I have no way of knowing unless you tell me.

On the other hand, if temperatures didn’t correspond to those predictions then the theory has been falsified. End of story.

What ‘theory’? If you’re refuting a theory you must know specifically which theory.

That’s how science works.

No it’s not. Theories keep being revised as new evidential data is gathered and knowledge is acquired.
2 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:50pm
Manolo

Bloody incompetent and socialist to the core: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/17/obama-to-call-for-tax-increases-on-wealthy-in-state-union-address/
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 3:51pm
calendar girl

Mikenmild 3:13pm –

“Could you direct me to a blog comments section where constructive debate IS possible?”

That’s a very disappointing attitude. All those long week-day hours at the public service computer screen, reading and commenting frequently on KB, and there’s no “constructive debate” in it for you? Why do you punish yourself so?

More importantly, why do you punish poor taxpayers who pay your salary for your long hours of faithful ‘work’?
9 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:04pm
freemark

Someone posted this at TS, it hadn’t attracted any reaction when I briefly looked.
“Any divergence between real-world climate phenomena and prior expectations poses interesting science questions. The case of the apparent slow-down of warming since the record El Niño event in 1997/1998 is
no exception. The global mean surface temperature trend was smaller1 between
1997 and 2013 (0.07±0.08 °C per decade) than over the last 50 years (0.16 ± 0.02 °C per decade), highlighting questions about the mechanisms that regulate decadal variability in the Earth’s temperature. In addition, the warming trend in the most recent 15-year period is near the lower edge of the 5–95% range of projections from a collection of climate models that were part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5).Why most of the model simulations suggest more warming than has been observed is a second question that deserves further exploration”
It appears from this data that we are looking at somewhere between -0.1 & 1.8 degrees C warming in the next 100 years. So the worst case modelled scenario at this stage (and the real warming is well below the modelled warming) is 1.8 C???
Call me a wing nut if you like anyone, but I am really struggling to get the word catastrophic in this equation. I’m surprised that you haven’t brought it up PG.
12 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:09pm
Pete George

“So if you maintain, as you do, that there is ‘compelling science’ for the AGW theory”

I don’t maintain there’s an ‘AGW theory’. I’m waiting for Wat to come back with one, I can’t find one.

I’ve found definitions (there’s various ways of describing it) including:

global warming
1. (Physical Geography) an increase in the average temperature worldwide believed to be caused by the greenhouse effect
(Harper Collins)

global warming
An increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. Many scientists believe that the Earth has been in a period of global warming for the past century or more, due in part to the increased production of greenhouse gases related to human activity.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of Student Science, Second Edition)

I found this in a research paper summary at at IOP Science:

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this ‘consensus gap’ are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact)’.

Sounds similar to what wat seems to be talking about. It also sounds similar to attempts to reposition evolution as theory (not fact).

That comes from Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature which concludes:

The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

There’s an “overwhelming percentage” that “endorses the scientific consensus on AGW”.
1 10
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:25pm
Psycho Milt

On the other hand, if temperatures didn’t correspond to those predictions then the theory has been falsified. End of story.

That’s how science works.

Er, no it’s not. If you have to resort to computer modelling as a means of getting anywhere near a test for your hypothesis, and the results don’t match your hypothesis, it might mean your hypothesis is wrong, or it might mean your computer models just aren’t good enough. A hypothesis that depends on computer modelling is hard to prove (ie, test).
5 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:25pm
holysheet

PG said “Theories keep being revised as new evidential data is gathered and knowledge is acquired”.

The problem for the gw nutters is that this little gem is exactly why there are so many disbelievers of the alarmist crap espoused. Its like last weeks debate over their statement “that the science is agreed and settled etc” Poor PG is a lost and confused soul.

And then we have freemak with this comment
“Call me a wing nut if you like anyone, but I am really struggling to get the word catastrophic in this equation. I’m surprised that you haven’t brought it up PG.”
The reason PG and the other GW nutters will not answer you freemark is because a 1.8 degree change in temp is well within the margin of error, so how can they argue against this when their own evidence is so screwed…
9 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:26pm
G152

The Waikato Times (division of the Auckland MSM) is publishing
a home owners house and section as being a fire risk.
Obviously they’re not here to see the overgrown state of the vegetation at the
south end of Frankton Railway station
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:30pm
Psycho Milt

Why most of the model simulations suggest more warming than has been observed is a second question that deserves further exploration”

Trying to model the global climate using computers is a big ask. The above suggests, first, that the models developed thus far aren’t very good, and second, that the people who developed them took a very pessimistic view of what’s happening. Which is fine to the extent that it means we should be sceptical about predictions of imminent catastrophe, but it doesn’t mean that AGW isn’t happening or that we don’t need to do something about it.
2 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:33pm
Pete George

last weeks debate over their statement “that the science is agreed and settled etc”

Who made a statement anything like that? I didn’t. And I didn’t see anyone else. Science on climate will never be “agreed and settled”, due to it’s nature it will have to be ongoing.

The fact that about 97% of peer reviewed scientific research supports the consensus on AGW is quite different. It’s pretty basic. Do you not understand that holysheet?
2 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:34pm
dcrown

Even the hard-right Herald is dismissing the idea of a third Romney run for the White House, Ouch!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11387631
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:38pm
publicwatchdog

Good afternoon Kiwibloggers 🙂

Most of you probably won’t have seen this – although apparently it was on the front page?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wairarapa-times-age/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503414&objectid=11387595

Supercity scheme ‘flawed’ – Bright

By don.farmer@age.co.nz

6:00 AM Saturday Jan 17, 2015

It hasn’t worked in Auckland and it won’t here, says activist

A former Carterton woman and self-proclaimed activist, Penny Bright, who has been at the forefront of many battles, especially in Auckland, is campaigning to have the Wellington supercity proposal, which includes Wairarapa, thrown out.

Ms Bright has written to all mayors and councillors in the greater Wellington region saying the Draft Reorganisation Proposal should be dropped forthwith.

She regards Auckland’s supercity as a failure that has not achieved any savings for ratepayers, and claims there is no evidence to show the Wellington concept would either.

In an open letter to all the elected representatives in the Wellington region, Ms Bright, a former pupil of Kuranui College who has lived in Auckland for years, said during the Christmas break she had studied many documents pertaining to council reorganisations, particularly the Wellington supercity idea.

She believes there should be no further amalgamations of councils “anywhere in New Zealand”, until a full, thorough and independent audit of the Auckland supercity is done based on “facts and evidence to confirm how cost-effective it has really been for the majority of Auckland Council citizens and ratepayers”.

She said the draft Wellington proposal was fundamentally flawed. “The people are not being given detailed facts and information showing exactly where councils in the Greater Wellington region are spending citizens’ and ratepayers’ money on council services and regulatory functions. That information is needed in order to establish a factual datum, upon which to measure existing or future cost-effectiveness in the provision of council services and regulatory functions.

“There is no information of this type in the Draft Wellington Reorganisation Proposal, so people simply cannot make an informed submission,” she said.

Ms Bright, whose activism began in the days of anti-apartheid campaigning, has twice stood for the Auckland mayoralty – in 2010 and 2013 when she secured 12,000 votes, or four per cent of votes cast.

She also contested two parliamentary seats, Epsom in 2011 challenging MP John Banks and Helensville last year, the seat held by Prime Minister John Key. She will be visiting Wairarapa next week and will speak at a public meeting at the Carterton Memorial Club on January 23, on “Why Auckland supercity is a super mess”.

She told the Times-Age she would be speaking against the proposed Wellington supercity “based on facts, evidence and my personal experiences of Auckland supercity”.

Ms Bright calls herself an “investigative activist” who uses the electoral process as an effective way to campaign for open, transparent and democratically accountable local and central government.

She has refused to pay rates since 2008 because, she said, Auckland City and now the Auckland supercity could not tell her how her rates were being spent ” which is a legal requirement under the Local Government Rating Act”.

“Auckland rates and debt have skyrocketed, while services, transparency, accountability and democracy have plummeted,” she said.

– Wairarapa Times-Age
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I do hope those supporting the proposed Wellington ‘Supercity’ attend this upcoming Public Meeting, so we can have some vigorous debate and discussion (like on Kiwiblog 😉

Friday 23 January 2015, 7.30pm – 9pm at the Carterton RSA Memorial Club on “Why Auckland supercity is a super mess”.

Kind regards

Penny Bright

(A copy of the above-mentioned letter that I sent to all Mayors and Councillors in the Greater Wellington region, is available here: http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz )
4 17
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:43pm
freemark

Regardless however, of the n’th degree of change, my thinkings are..
-We are all (developed countries) deliberately or inadvertently using either less energy, or more energy more efficiently. That is a good thing..efficiency in all aspects of life is effective.
-I’d love to see NZ 100% renewable in electricity generation (not just because I’m involved in Solar PV) This is a great marketing tool to attract hi tech industry (particularly energy storage) therefore jobs, smart people, revenue.
-We need to massively kick start our GE research into fast growing high photosynthesising Radiata species..and shoot any Wild Greens that vandalise this research again, or Luddites that irrationally oppose it. Again, smart people, revenue, cut out the Alarmists positively.
-Heavily promote the fact that at least 80% of Alarmists are anti-capitalism Lefties, and that NZ has recently rejected modern Communism (ie Green Environmentalism).
-Embrace & welcome the presence & investment $$ of Environmentalists who are anti-Communism.
-Inject some more testosterone into some of our current Politicians – this will be easier once some of the above actions have been taken.
Easy….
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 4:53pm
holysheet

Forgive me father for I am about to sin and comment on the mad PWB

Could it be that the reason the auckland supercity is in the shit is because there are so many bludgers like you who don’t pay their rates and freeload off those that do?
9 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:00pm
Pete George

A summary from Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013:

General
– Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
– There is a clear human influence on the climate
– It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.
– IPCC pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become.[14]

Historical climate metrics
– It is likely (with medium confidence) that 1983—2013 was the warmest 30-year period for 1400 years.
– It is virtually certain the upper ocean warmed from 1971 to 2010. This ocean warming accounts, with high confidence, for 90% of the energy accumulation between 1971 and 2010.
– It can be said with high confidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass in the last two decades and that Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.
– There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19th century has been larger than the mean sea level rise of the prior two millennia.
– Concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased to levels unprecedented on earth in 800,000 years.

Models
AR5 relies on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), an international effort among the climate modeling community to coordinate climate change experiments.[15] Most of the CMIP5 and Earth System Model (ESM) simulations for AR5 WRI were performed with prescribed CO
2 concentrations reaching 421 ppm (RCP2.6), 538 ppm (RCP4.5), 670 ppm (RCP6.0), and 936 ppm (RCP 8.5) by the year 2100. (IPCC AR5 WGI, page 22).
– Climate models have improved since the prior report.
– Model results, along with observations, provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.

Summary for policy makers: http://www.climate2013.org/spm
Full report: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
1 13
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:00pm
cricko

Pete George @ 2.28

You state,
“Most or all parties accept the compelling science of climate change” (abbr)

Typical bullshit disingenuous non argument produced by leftie knowalls.

Of course climate changes, nobody disputes that.

The point at issue is whether the change is natural or man has an effect on the change.
(can you grasp that point Pete ?)

The reason the handwringers changed the label from Global Warming or A.G.W. (man made global warming)
to climate change was to make it difficult to argue with them. (get it yet ?)

Hence you have a setup where, after the label was changed a typical leftie knowall, Helen Clark (28/10/06) can
come out with a statement like, “The climate change deniers are in retreat.”

Or other puke such as, “The science is settled, ‘climate change’ is now accepted.”

Of course it it, climate change was never doubted by anyone.

Hope that helps you get a grasp Pete.
8 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:01pm
stephieboy

Reid at 11.45 am , so an ex Lt Scott Bennett has made some allegations about the CIA , Swiss Banks and the funding of ISIS.

As you’ve apparently read or watched his report / book what is the substance of his allegations exactly and the factual evidence he uses to back them up ?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:01pm
Manolo

As if KB had not seen enough of addled Griff, now we have the Don Quixote of AGW joining forces in defence of Gaia. God help us!
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:09pm
OneTrack

Pete – “The fact that about 97% of peer reviewed scientific research supports the consensus on AGW is quite different.”

So science is now just a vote? Newton and Galileo would be turning in their graves.

Do you have a current verification for the 97%? And since you have already admitted that there is no agreed theory of AGW, can you tell us exactly what that 97% consensus is ie is it that they agree CO2 has a some greenhouse effect, but that the effect is miniscule, or do they agree that the world is warming and will be completely molten in 5 years time?

So, yes, you do need an actual agreed scientific theory, backed up by results, which includes the pause, before you can say AGW is proven and/or that we need to do “something”. Not some vague assertion that things are getting “warmer” and its all Western countries fault.

As somebody said above, that is what real science is – hypothesis, predictions and verified results. Climate “science”(sic) doesnt really appear to have any of those.
8 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:10pm
Manolo

Mandatory reading for those bleeding heart liberals:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Theodore_Dalrymple/The_Question_Of_Islam/
7 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:12pm
holysheet

You don’t need to quote anything from the UN PG. That organ of the communists has got bugger all credibility.
Its all about control of the thought processes of the masses. Thank god (or the prophet or budda or whoever) for the internet and blogs like this. The plebs can do their own research and with that information counter any bullshit you and your ilk come up with.
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:13pm
Ross12

For Pete G. This is a post from Jo Nova’s site and her thread on the “hottest year”

” Bob Koss

January 17, 2015 at 3:27 pm · Reply

Don’t believe the record temperatures.

I ran a file comparator over both the unadjusted and adjusted files GHCN produces for both the 15th and 16th of Jan.

Between the Jan 15th and 16th they added no new usable data to the GHCN unadjusted file. There were 3 months of data added for 2014, but they were all immediately marked defective.

To build their adjusted file they start with the cleaned(no defects) unadjusted data. Since that didn’t change, their adjusted file should have stayed the same for both the 15th and 16th. It didn’t. They changed 18656 lines on the 16th. Over 200,000 months of data. Those figures are since the 19th century. All changes were in the US, Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas. Nowhere else. You Aussies didn’t even make it to the finals. 🙂

GISS also uses the GHCN adjusted data, so they can’t claim independence.

They have been busy beavers since at least the 6th of Jan. removing and inserting data all over the world. Pretty sure you were included in the preliminary rounds. 🙂 “

So Pete ,this is the level desperation to keep the gravy train going. Even with this bogus adjustment we get a change which is well within the margin of error. No scientist is his/her right mind would read anything into these figures.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:15pm
stephieboy

Christopher Monckton leading climate change denier , purveyor of AIDs, Graves’ disease and other cures and of course Birther .Just checking out if he’s a creationist .,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm

Now why dies all this quackery seem to go hand in hand with climate deniers ?
5 15
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:17pm
calendar girl

holysheet @ 4:26pm –

“Theories keep being revised as new evidential data is gathered and knowledge is acquired”.

The problem for the gw nutters is that this little gem is exactly why there are so many disbelievers of the alarmist crap espoused. Its like last weeks debate over their statement “that the science is agreed and settled etc”

There’s more to it, though, than just revision of theories as the science ‘grows’. There are also the doubts cast by the well-documented trans-Atlantic ‘doctoring of the data to fit the theory’ by academic and other scientific contributors to reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The general public in the West is gradually becoming aware that political protagonists of Climate Change theory (formerly ‘Global Warming’) are intent on taxing businesses and people of developed nations to subsidise undeveloped nations. There is presently no other political game internationally that would allow the United Nations to stride towards its socialist nirvana of a truly ‘World Government’. Accordingly, we have every reason to be sceptical about the extent and threat of Global Warming, and about anything that man can do – or not do – to remove or minimise such threat.
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:17pm
Griff

The computer models on which the whole AGW alarmism is based generated predictions of future temperatures.

dear dear
Global warming is based first on physics
The fact that co2 is transparent to incoming radiation and absorbs outgoing radiation
Focusing only on the surface temperature shows a gross ignorance of the planetary energy balance
93percent of energy added to the system is absorbed by the oceans.
The entire it has not warmed since 1998 ignores that the super el nino of 1998 resulted in a temperature spike that was well above the long term trend.. When only model runs that simulate the lack of elninos since 1998 are examined they correctly predict the trend since .
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html

Abstract
The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

The fact that global warming alarm is shared by every major scientific body in the world should give some idea of the true problem we face.
2 15
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:18pm
Reid

As you’ve apparently read or watched his report / book what is the substance of his allegations exactly and the factual evidence he uses to back them up ?

stephie I gave you the video, for once in your miserable KB career, find out something for yourself by actually watching it.

One of the many reasons many call you stupidboy is because you never do any thinking on your own, you rely on other people to do it for you and then you regurgitate their thoughts without ever having read the original source material.

Sorry pal, I’m not going to indulge your intellectual bankruptcy and plain laziness. Especially when I’ve given you your answer on a platter. All you have to do is look at it.
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:20pm
Griff

Climate Change theory (formerly ‘Global Warming’)
how many times do I have to point out to you sheep
Intentional panel on climate change est 1988
There has been no change of name and any one who posts such crap really needs their head examined.
if a site you go to can not even get such basic facts right why believe anything they say?
2 11
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:24pm
dime

Rodney on uber:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11388041

“Customers give drivers a star rating out of five, which is public.

Too many negative reviews and you no longer drive for Uber. The discipline is fast and quick. It beats any system of government-mandated licensing.”

love that bit. its a shame we let the govt regulate virtually everything when the market could take care of it for a lot less money
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:24pm
freemark

Hey Griff
Do you accept the numbers quoted in my comment at 4:09 PM?
What do you make of them?
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:27pm
mikenmild

Yes, stephieboy, watch Reid’s 3-hour video or put up with being called names. That’s Reid’s way of arguing.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:29pm
stephieboy

Reid, I think if you post links like that one there is a reasonable assumption that you’ve read them or you do have some familarity with the subject and contents .

You obviously have done neither therefore we have every right to question both your bona fides and credibility.

Have another try .Go back and read something you’ve obviously not bothered to look at and then give us this time your “informed “opinion .
6 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:29pm
holysheet

And another nutter is back. Griff said

“The fact that global warming alarm is shared by every major scientific body in the world”

And you have evidence of this do you? Every major scientific body worldwide? Do not bother posting links that would only clutter up the pages here, but I can’t imagine the local branch of the Hindu medical association or the members of the azabijan bird watching society agreeing with your assumption. Taking the piss in case you want to reply nutter.
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:31pm
Reid

What you’ll find idiotboy is that your question as to what it’s about is answered in the first few minutes. Try not to draw conclusions about what I think, you’ve never been correct yet, so why would you keep trying the same thing expecting a different result?
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:35pm
cricko

You really do have to laugh.

How these leftie hanwringers love to have a label which they can hang on anyone who
dissagrees with them to try and shut the argument down without having to actually respond
and backup their bullshit theories with facts.

Racist, homophobe, Tory, etc. etc.

And now the latest, “Climate change denier.”

And please people, please do not use the terms Global Warming or Man made global warming.
The lefties have dropped those terms now.
See Griff and PG above.
9 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:37pm
Sofia

Penny
I believe it is a pity you didn’t emphasize there is a lack of statistics to prove merging Auckland Council itself made any useful savings and THEREFORE there is no evidence to support the Wellington proposal – their quote that there is – “the Auckland experience” – is a lie.
The IT monitoring system is incomplete and requires about $75million more than budgeted.
A review is underway in some areas but not due until at least June this year.
The TRUTH is there are no FACTS to FOLLOW THE DOLLAR.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:39pm
calendar girl

Keep up the personal abuse, Griff. That’s the way to win your argument.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:42pm
SGA

@stephieboy at 5:29 pm
Sometimes I think that when Reid does attempt to frame a “case” and its “evidence” in his own words, deep down inside he starts to have doubts. Perhaps it just feels safer not to have to “own” it to that extent. Speculation on my part, sure.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:42pm
OneTrack

cricko – “And please people, please do not use the terms Global Warming or Man made global warming.
The lefties have dropped those terms now.”

You must admit that it is pretty inconvenient for them that the warming seems to have stopped.
5 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:47pm
mikenmild

I’m sure that’s the case, SGA, because he quickly gets to the ‘evil ones’ who are supposedly behind everything. When one rereads something that one has written and it seems crazy, then self doubt should follow.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:50pm
Griff

Freemark
your numbers ignore the fucken great jump in temperature that was brought about by the el nino in 1997.1998
trend 1980 to 1998 gisstemp 0.120 C decade
trend 1980 to 2015 gisstemp 0.156 C decade
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
The overall trend is higher 1980 to 2014 than in 1980 to 1998 because 1998 was so far above the trend line. an anomaly due to the strongest el nino since we have evaluated them.
I used 1980 only because that is when the satellite record begins meaning you can see the same result with all the series.

When we has such an el nino again it will again be far above the trend .
This last year was warmer without any elnino being declared.
1 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:51pm
jcuk

jcuk (811 comments) says:
January 18th, 2015 at 8:26 am
What a load of rubbish Longknives … it is a nice respectful story of what could have been Josephs thoughts through the process.
Nothing like the disgusting and crude cartoons coming from France which should offend any right minded person..

Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 21Report

Despite this being a right wing blog there seem to be a lack of right minded people here judging from the 21 negatives 🙂
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:52pm
holysheet

But wait there’s more.
With just 2 new eruptions from volcanoes in Tonga and iceland this week, there has been more GW disruption to the atmosphere than from human activity in the past 10 years.
And they still say it’s all man made..
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:54pm
jcuk

Chuck Bird (4,987 comments) says:
January 18th, 2015 at 9:34 am

@jcuk
So you do not think it reasonable to judge countries that cut off body parts for religious offences?

Do not try to put words in my hands please. There is a world of difference between custom that used to be part of western culture and barbaric practices.
1 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 5:59pm
Griff

calendar girl (1,297 comments) says:
January 18th, 2015 at 5:42 pm

Keep up the personal abuse, Griff. That’s the way to win your argument.

No calender girl it is a way to point out you did not even think about what you copy and pasted .

They changed the name to climate change from global warming in the same cut and paste attacking the fucken IPCC Est 1988 is such a idiotic thing to post you should be highly embarrassed at your gullibility and basic stupidity
2 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:00pm
freemark

Thanks Griff for the info & polite response.
Does this mean that according to all those credible organsations we are looking at under 2 Degrees warming (worst case scenario) in the next 100 years?
If we do nothing about CO2 emissions in that time…
8 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:02pm
jcuk

Jack5 (5,401 comments) says:
January 18th, 2015 at 9:56 am

When in Rome ?
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:04pm
nasska

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u2flaa9nnzwxy9x/climate%201.jpg?dl=0
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:05pm
cricko

Easy on now Griff, easy boy.

Your going to burst a boiler.

You know they changed the name to make it harder to argue with them, don’t you ?

Every 9 year old who has learned about the ice ages knows that climate changes.
6 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:08pm
Griff

Holyshit is the bird watching society a major scientific body
or are you just a fuckwit showing us your ignorance

partial List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
5 13
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:09pm
freemark

Does that batshit woman have no shame?
Entirely discredited, completely hypocritical, tax & ratepayer bludging, corrupt, dishonest & left wing politically motivated.
Cowardly too, as she won’t take me to court.
We know why that is, don’t we dear Penny?
Meant, of course, in the most scathing & disrespectful way, of course.
11 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:10pm
cha

With just 2 new eruptions from volcanoes in Tonga and iceland this week, there has been more GW disruption to the atmosphere than from human activity in the past 10 years.

Nope.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:11pm
Griff

freemark
what can you conclude from
trend 1980 to 1998 gisstemp 0.120 C decade
trend 1980 to 2015 gisstemp 0.156 C decade

it would be reasonable to assume this shows an increase in the trend as expected.
it would also be reasonable to assume that as we are continuing to add co2 the trend will continue to increase.
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:14pm
cricko

So Griff,

Does that whole list of scientific outfits all believe that the cavemen caused the end of the Ice Age.

What you actually posted there was a list of all the pigs who have their snouts in the global warming trough.
4 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:15pm
jcuk

Michael (3,848 comments) says:
January 18th, 2015 at 2:01 pm
jcuk
From an earlier post by you.

Micheal .

First of all you can’t spell Michael correctly. My sincere apology … I added the ‘e’ afterwards and in the wrong place 🙁

I have to ask why are you so uptight about it? I am not sure that I am but it and comments about it certainly got the thread going today 🙂

I am far from being religious and my crit of the cartoons is purely esthetical . If David had not stuck them in my face I doubt if I would have bothered to look for them.
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:23pm
minus

Publicwatchdog

Before the local body amalgamation the Waitakere City Council took a 44.4 per cent stake in a film studio joint venture in Henderson Valley, investing $6 million in the joint venture.
The Auckland Council now fully owns the studios, now called the Auckland Film Studios.

The investment has been criticised for a lack of transparency in the investment and lack of evidence of good returns to ratepayers.

O’Riley said the council contribution to a PPP for new film studios would be through providing land rather than cash. Giving money was not part of Ateed’s strategy, but the council had plenty of land available.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11387666

It is unlikely any detail will be released regarding Council / film industry arrangements – right or wrong, such detail is inevitably classified “commercially sensitive”.

What percentage of Council commerce must be revealed for Penny Bright to feel safe in beginning to pay her rates –
75% contracts details, 90, 95% or must it be all 100% available.
And if less than 100% transparent, will she ever pay rates?
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:28pm
freemark

Thanks again Griff.
I’m still trying to figure out what to conclude.
I know that much of the alarmism & catastrophism is left wing anti-capitalism driven, but I don’t think that is the case with you.
I do believe however, that when my potential grandchildren are 80 years old (& that will be in about 100 years), that humanity will have been able to adapt to even double or triple the current inaccurate model’s worst case scenario (5 degrees perhaps??)
But I’m highly confident that we can & will via mechanisms I posted above mitigate – as soon as the politics are taken out of the equation rational & smart humans in conjunction with the market will adapt as required – it will be far more profitable to humankind than throwing $Billions at the UN.
8 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:30pm
Griff

I see criko
its a massive scam be all the worlds scientists to steal money from other scientists and place it into the great global warming slush fund. There is ever only so much grant money available and many of the above society are not directly involved in climate research why would they endorse funding going to competing scientific body’s ?
are you thick or drunk ?
4 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:34pm
renderer

Hell Penny, the photo in your link does not do you much justice. Did you have the mumps?
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:37pm
EAD

General question – Everybody here except Grief, Sillyboy and Mr beige knows “global warming”/”climate change”(or whatever they’re calling it these days) is not real, yet the media and the government force it through anyway. So what is it that we as individuals can do?

As this article by Kit Daniels astutely observes:

“Man-made “climate change” is largely a myth promoted by politicians to scare the public into accepting a vast expansion of government to supposedly stop “global warming.”

Global warming is a manufactured problem played up by the government to instigate a public reaction – fear – the government then exploits to offer a predetermined solution: the expansion of government at the public’s expense.

Today “global warming” is used as the bogey man because it allows the United Nations to scare the world’s population into believing “man-made climate change” is too big of a threat for their country to handle alone and thus it can only be “defeated” through the expansion of the U.N. at the expense of their nation’s sovereignty.

And state-funded scientists are given thousands and even millions of dollars to help promote the myth of “global warming” by fitting their data into the fearmongering agenda.”

http://www.infowars.com/the-truth-about-climate-change/
12 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:38pm
itstricky

“Man-made “climate change” is largely a myth promoted by politicians to scare the public into accepting a vast expansion of government to supposedly stop “global warming.”

I’ve heard some doosy conspiracy theories in my time but that one just takes the cake. To expand Government! Haaaaahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
6 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 6:51pm
Griff

depends freemark
as i have pointed out the models are not particularly inaccurate when you understand what they represent and most reputable climate scientist talk of a response to a doubling of co2 being around 3C so 5C is well within the bounds of expected results by the end of the century if we continue business as usual.
To place that in perspective
The difference between the peak of the last ice age and now is about -4c
At that time there was 2km of ice covering the area of new york city

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/12/20/000356161_20121220072749/Rendered/PDF/NonAsciiFileName0.pdf
What will happen to the billions of displaced poor ?
If you look into the conditions that predicated the Syrian conflict it was greatly effect by a collapse of agriculture due to an unprecedented drought
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1
what happens when most of the middle east is staring at a similar result along with China Pakistan and India
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 7:00pm
mikenmild

Nice to know that climate change has its place in your conspiracy-crazed worldview, EAD. At least buying gold won’t be affected by climate change.
5 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 7:10pm
freemark

Yes, but we are not talking about 2km, or even 2m of ice covering New York, are we.
AFAIK the current worst case scenario of 1.7 degrees may see 30-40cm sea level rise – over 100 years.
And as we know, CO2 is plant food, currently contributing to the greening of traditionally dry areas like the ME.
But I suspect there will need to be a tactical solution to the issues in the ME well before CC requires any humanitarian response.
Not my wish, but as the political Left undermines the West & encourages holy war it seems inevitable.
8 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 7:12pm
jonno1

@ Griff: For the first time ever I agree with you – IPCC does indeed stand for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It’s not the IPGW. However, you have been somewhat disingenuous in failing to point out that the role of the IPCC is “…understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change…” (emphasis mine). So the IPCC has no mandate to consider any other cause of climate change than that which is human-induced. And you know as well as anyone that the IPCC consistently equated climate change to global warming until, sadly, global warming ceased, notwithstanding continuing increases in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
7 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 7:14pm
stephieboy

EAD, some good reasons we should trust the stellar words from the prince of paranoia Alex Jones ?

That Danieks fellow a member of the National Academy of Sciemces or Royal Society ?
5 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 7:20pm
Griff

global warming ceased,
😆
did it?

Was it when 2014 became the warmest year on record that alerted you to global warming stopping or was it the increasing in sea level due to expanding oceans and melting ice
what a stupid comment
are you going to start the dragon slaying and force x dribbling next?

Freemark you gave a best case not the worse
The ipcc is known to be conservative but I will happily accept their estimates in any discussion on here .

The future warming by 2100 – with comparable emission scenarios – is about the same as in the previous report. For the highest scenario, the best-estimate warming by 2100 is still 4 °C (see the following chart). – See more at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/#sthash.nYOPqgX9.dpuf
4 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 7:31pm
Pete George

So the IPCC has no mandate to consider any other cause of climate change than that which is human-induced.

I don’t know how you deduce that. The role is stated as:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

It would be impossible to understand the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change without considering all factors that could influence climate change.

In the latest IPCC report summary makes it clear it considers natural and anthropogenic forcing:

C. Drivers of Climate Change
Natural and anthropogenic substances and processes that alter the Earth’s energy budget are drivers of climate change.

D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes
Understanding recent changes in the climate system results from combining observations, studies of feedback processes, and model simulations. Evaluation of the ability of climate models to simulate recent changes requires consideration of the state of all modelled climate system components at the start of the simulation and the natural and anthropogenic forcing used to drive the models.

It would be ludicrous to exclude the major factors that could influence warming, the natural ones.
2 9
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 7:38pm
calendar girl

Griff re your comment at 6:00pm.

Sadly, I think that you simply have an uncontrollable personal-anger problem. Too often you lack any basic control over your emotions, or how you conduct yourself in debate. Everyone with a view different from your interpretation of events is a wingnut, or worse, and often subjected to gutter expletives and/or personalised derision. There are specialists who can provide genuine assistance in dealing with that kind of anger.

The sole thrust of your 6:00 comment on mine of 5:17 was to criticise use of the term “global warming”. Where has anyone ever disputed that the UN’s ‘Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’ (IPCC) was formed and so-named in 1988? But please don’t attempt to deny that “global warming” is a generally-accepted and widely-used description of the phenomenon under discussion. That usage is not going to go away, no matter how much you choose to shout and stamp your feet.

What you didn’t comment on re my comment of 5:17 was its main point:

“The general public in the West is gradually becoming aware that political protagonists of Climate Change theory (formerly ‘Global Warming’) are intent on taxing businesses and people of developed nations to subsidise undeveloped nations. There is presently no other political game internationally that would allow the United Nations to stride towards its socialist nirvana of a truly ‘World Government’. Accordingly, we have every reason to be sceptical about the extent and threat of Global Warming, and about anything that man can do – or not do – to remove or minimise such threat.”

Funny that you let that one go straight through to the ‘keeper. You were so blind with anger at the alleged mis-naming of ‘climate change’ that you totally ignored the substantive point – the IPCC’s role in driving the West into world wealth re-distribution under the baton of the United Nations. Realisation of that scarey political strategy may ultimately cause much greater harm to mankind than any of the ‘climate change’ trends verified to date by science.
11 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 7:48pm
Richard II

Sadly, I think that you simply have an uncontrollable personal-anger problem. Too often you lack any basic control over your emotions, or how you conduct yourself in debate. Everyone with a view different from your interpretation of events is a wingnut, or worse, and often subjected to gutter expletives and/or personalised derision. There are specialists who can provide genuine assistance in dealing with that kind of anger.

calendar girl

Sounds like a good proportion of hate-filled, veteran RWNJ posters on here including big bruv, RRM, nasska, manolo, Reid, dad4justice, etc, etc. Sorry if I’ve missed any of you proud Klan wannabes’ out.

There is some real poison on this blog.
8 12
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 7:55pm
nasska

….” hate-filled, veteran RWNJ “….!!!!

According to Baity I’m a commo, progressive flower child. 🙂
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 7:58pm
mikenmild

Yes, calendar girl, why would you single Griff out? There are plenty of angry Kiwiblogger to be concerned about Is it just that he derided your nonsense?
4 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:00pm
jonno1

I was rather hoping for a reasoned response from you Griff, especially as I was agreeing with your point! But TBH I wasn’t holding my breath, as abuse appears to be your default mode. Very strange behaviour for someone attempting to persuade others.

As for the “warmest year on record”, you are no doubt aware of the numbers? Without looking it up (so I may be wrong!) I believe it’s something like 0.02degC above the previous “warmest” year (2010?).
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:00pm
EAD

Stephieboy – who is Alex Jones?

I linked to an article by Kit Daniels republished on the infowars website. Read what he wrote – Scientists have been corrupted by lavish funding to make data fit a narrative. That doesn’t require accreditation from some external body, it requires good investigative journalism.
3 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:07pm
freemark

“Too dangerous” for Police to assist noise control and remove a stereo from feral Hamilton party.
FFS, probably too many resources fining safe drivers between 250 & 400 drink driving.
I have no respect for NZ Police anymore..I’ll try hard not to pass that attitude on to my kids.
I don’t necessarily think they are corrupt..just fucking wimpy soft cocks scared of the ferals, the MSM & the PC mob.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11388201
10 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:07pm
wat dabney

Pete George,

You need to be specific. There’s been many computer models that have continually been developed concurrent with ongoing research and data collection.

You must know which models you’re talking about. I have no way of knowing unless you tell me.

I asked you to present the evidence, remember?

If you can’t, that’s fine. But remember it was you that assured us how strong the AGW science is, yet now you claim not to have a clue.

What ‘theory’? If you’re refuting a theory you must know specifically which theory.

You should probably stop trying to be cute, Pete.

And also stop being completely evasive.
6 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:09pm
wat dabney

Oh dear Griff,

“Warmest year on record”, eh?

Three crucial things:

1) Only if the recent temperature record matches the models’ predictions would it be relevant to cite it as evidence. Warming in and of itself would in fact be counter evidence if it doesn’t match the models, and this is in fact the case. So it is sceptics who can confidently cite last year’s temperature, not alarmists.

2) The claim for 2014 being the warmest year is based on a supposed difference about some four hundredths of a degree. This is not significant because the older temperature record is certainly not that accurate and also because it falls within the bounds of statistical error.

As I told you before, if you are citing numbers which fall within the range of statistical error you have already lost the argument.

3) You should probably probably check you facts before making a complete tit of yourself. NOAA claims that it is “more unlikely than likely” that 2014 was the warmest year. Therefore your claim is absolutely without merit.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1

Please stop making claims which are obviously false.
5 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:17pm
Pete George

“And also stop being completely evasive.”

You’re the one being evasive wat. You’ve claimed there is an ‘AGW Theory’ but haven’t said what that is. So you’ve failed, not some mythical theory.

And you claimed “The computer models on which the whole AGW alarmism is based generated predictions of future temperatures.”

But you won’t say what computer models. So you can’t expect me to produce evidence when you can’t even define what you mean.

But on models in general you might have missed something I quoted above:

Models
AR5 relies on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), an international effort among the climate modeling community to coordinate climate change experiments.[15] Most of the CMIP5 and Earth System Model (ESM) simulations for AR5 WRI were performed with prescribed CO
2 concentrations reaching 421 ppm (RCP2.6), 538 ppm (RCP4.5), 670 ppm (RCP6.0), and 936 ppm (RCP 8.5) by the year 2100. (IPCC AR5 WGI, page 22).
– Climate models have improved since the prior report.
– Model results, along with observations, provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.

Specify what you’re referring to or I’ll assume you can’t, or you don’t actually know any detail about what you were claiming.
3 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:17pm
Reid

There is some real poison on this blog.

Richard if you’re so girly and delicate you get yourself upset over words typed onto the interweb, you’ve got much bigger problems than anything we can solve here.

Like calendar girl I suggest you seek some professional help, or if you can’t afford the consultation fees, a machine like this will basically do the same thing, only not as expensive.

Don’t worry about thanking me, I’m only trying to help, even in the face of your hurtful insults.
8 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:20pm
Richard II

Haha. True to form, Reid brings out school-yard humour, sexism, and penis jokes when legitimately criticised for being an angry man.

And I’m the one with problems?
8 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:27pm
nasska

Not only that Reid you’ve been very cruel & you’ve hurt his feelings. 🙂

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7sui4d8ncge72s6/Wankstain%2023.jpg?dl=0
4 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:32pm
freemark

Hey Dick II
You may be happier elsewhere, why not exercise that freedom.
This place is for grown ups, not delicate lefty losers.
9 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:33pm
Richard II

Mate, you, nascar, and Reid are angrier than Andrew Little. Fact.
4 8
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:35pm
Reid

Not only that Reid you’ve been very cruel & you’ve hurt his feelings.

Yes you just can’t help lefties can you nasska. Not even when your advice is entirely accurate and weally weally would help the poor things.

Oh the humanity!
3 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:36pm
Pete George

“This place is for grown ups…”

Perhaps you could try acting like one?
5 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:37pm
Griff

your comment

There’s more to it, though, than just revision of theories as the science ‘grows’. There are also the doubts cast by the well-documented trans-Atlantic ‘doctoring of the data to fit the theory’ by academic and other scientific contributors to reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The general public in the West is gradually becoming aware that political protagonists of Climate Change theory (formerly ‘Global Warming’) are intent on taxing businesses and people of developed nations to subsidise undeveloped nations. There is presently no other political game internationally that would allow the United Nations to stride towards its socialist nirvana of a truly ‘World Government’. Accordingly, we have every reason to be sceptical about the extent and threat of Global Warming, and about anything that man can do – or not do – to remove or minimise such threat.

1 There are also the doubts cast by the well-documented trans-Atlantic ‘doctoring of the data to fit the theory’ by academic and other scientific contributors to reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This is a direct attack on the integrity of the worlds scientific community.
I took it as a reference to the so called climate gate emails .
9 different reviews looked into those allegations and found no perversion of science and no hint of any scientist involved being guilty of doctoring of the data to fit the theory’. This is pure anti science propaganda at its destructive and most baseless level

2 The general public in the West is gradually becoming aware that political protagonists of Climate Change theory (formerly ‘Global Warming’) are intent on taxing businesses and people of developed nations to subsidize undeveloped nations.

this is were you coped the abuse for the global warming /climate change memme
if you google the terms you will find that both terms are used and have been used equally in both the scientific literature and in published books over the last 100 or so years in reference to global warming and the resultant climate change.

The political voices for wealth distribution Due to the fact that the only voices giving any options are from the left the right is busy denial of the science.
You are talking about the great one world government conspiwhacky and deserve to be treated like a nutjob for repeating such bazaar rubbish
You do realize that the so called wealth transfer is because we have built our industrialized economy’s on the back of coal and oil and are now telling the developing world they can not do so. personally I think that some third world countries will successfully leapfrog the west in a similar manor to the copper networks not playing a role in there telecommunication infrastructure instead they are going direct to cellular networks while we are still operating to legacy copper . China is building a massive renewable based distributed infrastructure capacity as are many developing nations while we risk still being tied to the obsolete network based centralized generation model

3 Accordingly, we have every reason to be skeptical about the extent and threat of Global Warming, and about anything that man can do – or not do – to remove or minimize such threat

You are guilty of failing to separate the rational science from the emotional politics
The science is comprehensive and conclusive according to every major scientific body in the world. We have a significant problem. The scientists are not a bunch of lefty infiltrators they personally hold as many and varied political perspectives as the society’s they inhabit. This sort of thinking is the major problem we face If the right wing continues in denial of this reality eventually it will become marginalized and the left will dominate . Science is the reason for our civilization advances you attitude and that of many on the right is pushing us away from the rationally of science and back towards a darker time of ignorance and fear.
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:40pm
nasska

….”Science is the reason for our civilization advances you attitude and that of many on the right is pushing us away from the rationally of science and back towards a darker time of ignorance and fear.”…..

Don’t worry about that bit Griff….the Godaddled have got it sorted. 🙂
6 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:44pm
Viking2

A Londoner parks his brand new Porsche in front of the office to show it off to his colleagues.

As he’s getting out of the car, a lorry comes speeding along too close to the kerb and takes off the door before zooming off.
More than a little distraught, the Londoner grabs his mobile and calls the police.

Five minutes later, the police arrive.

Before the policeman has a chance to ask any questions, the man starts screaming hysterically:

“My Porsche, my beautiful red Porsche is ruined. No matter how long it’s at the panel beaters it’ll simply never be the same again!”

After the man finally finishes his rant, the policeman shakes his head in disgust.
“I can’t believe how materialistic you bloody Londoners are,” he says.

“You lot are so focused on your possessions that you don’t notice anything else in your life.”

“How can you say such a thing at a time like this?” sobs the Porsche owner.

The policeman replies, “Didn’t you realise that your right arm was torn off when the truck hit you.”

The Londoner looks down in horror ……..”B***DY HELL!”
He screams……. “Where’s my Rolex ????…”
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 8:58pm
Viking2

Not PC but damn funny anyway.

A new Furniture Removal Service in Papua New Guinea

Try setting up this business in Australia, New Zealand the UK, USA, etc.

The Fun Police would be all over you.

http://screencast.com/t/wKDyA8OlPp3
5 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 9:03pm
Reid

Not PC but damn funny anyway.

Careful V2. You’ll offend the delicate lefties.

Apparently, we’re supposed to care about them.
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 9:07pm
freemark

@PG
Good on ya..probably get a few brownie points at TS for that one.
How many have you collected for swallowing the rape culture stuff?
Obviously not quite enough yet…
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 9:12pm
nasska

Bob was devastated at the news, his whole life turned upside down by a single, terse letter from his employer. His luxurious, ordered lifestyle would be coming to an abrupt and bitter end, his entire daily routine thrown out of kilter, his existence now a topsy-turvy disaster area with no purpose, no objective and no meaning.

“Why me?” he said. “Why the fuck did they offer ME a job?”
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 18, 2015 9:14pm

More comments:

‹
1
2
3
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The Dodd-Frank Act: Good intentions and a lot of complexity

General Debate 19 January 2015 »

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

Ross Meurant: ‘History can be a Bitch’ – once said Titewhai Harawira
Breaking Views
More lawlessness from National
No Right Turn
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