My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Are glaciers uniformly receding? | Main | Test »

Comments

Tez

Bammbamm "Being the only one here who has worked on several beam lines of a nuclear accelerator "
Were you sitting on one when you wrote your last post?

"If Mr Wishart were to check the sanity dipsticks on his motley crew of 'CO2 believers"

Who are you refering to, the only one I can think of is cm

PaulsNZ

Wow can't wait for the MSM to print some articles in the comedy sections of their media.! Seriously any Journalist with a high school education would be cringing when listening to this twaddle, The most one would gain is how Karin Kronin could keep a straight face when espousing her views on men, obviously a Socialist feminist with a warp toward lesbianism and peculiar sense of humor regarding the suspicious Death of the Kennedy's . I can see her job as a define surplus to requirements.

John Lorimer

While reading your polemic my initial gut feeling was that Lowe wouldn't have said Katrina was caused by climate change. So listened to the audio. Gues what?
He didn't say anything of the sort.
You are simply full of it Wishart.
Anyone who takes you at your word is a fool.

AS

The NZ unit really need go no further than this document from The Tyndall Centre in the UK:

It is the seminal work on climate indoctrination and should be required reading for all NZ journalists and government propagandists.

"The Social Simulation of the Public Perception
of Weather Events and their Effect upon
the Development of Belief in
Anthropogenic Climate Change"

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp58.pdf

This is a sample from the paper:

"Obviously influenced by the substantive issue, we have labelled the scale we use as belief
temperature. We assume that events (direct and indirect encounters) provide the impetus
for belief change. One should keep in mind, that although we are dealing with a public
construction of reality, the reality per se has not yet manifest. The public are assessing
clues to confirm the conclusions of science. In effect, it is the social construction of
quasi-reality."

Ian Wishart

John, you'd be a prat. I
didn't throw up the entire audio grab because it was so long, but he went on to say this:

"Disasters that are clearly attributable to climate change should increase awareness and political pressure to do something but Hurricane Katrina is a worry in that context because it clearly didn't produce that stimulus in the US."

Of course, his blaming Katrina on climate change was already implicit in the grab I published, but then, you are a follower of Ken Perrott so I guess comprehension is not one of your strong points.

Bammys Secretary

Tez:

I was referring to all the 'CO2 Cultists' around the world ... look at their backgrounds.
There is a high percentage of 'unhappy unwell people' ...
Just look who got into climate science in the 1990's ...

CHK

Relative costs?

About 10:1 Climate change : LHR by my reckoning

LHR:
With a budget of 9 billion US dollars (approx. €6300M or £5600M as of Jan 2010), the LHC is the most expensive scientific experiment in human history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

and climate change research?

Richard North at EURef has been watching this like a hawk:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/five-times-cost-of-manhattan-project.html


CHK

Aussie Skeptics are over 60's grey haired men?

Jo Nova care to comment?

http://joannenova.com.au/

Charles HIgley

So, is there a mechanism for withdrawing a doctoral degree? "Professor" Lowe is not a scientists as he does not believe in integrity, honesty, or learning the relevant science. He believes on faith, not knowledge - he has drunk the blue Kool Aid.

He might be a "climate scientist" (with this adjective, "scientist" does not have it's real meaning, but means "charlatan"), but he has the whole thing backwards regarding the participants.

Funding of skeptics is a strawman argument. Skeptics are not organized, we just network, and we are barely funded or not at all. It is the "climate change" people who are funded in the many billions. "Climate scientists" open and freely seek big oil funding.

The "climate change" scam is backed by a group of politicians and filthy rich who want to take over the world by creating a false carbon economy, huge transfers of wealth and power to the hands of a few, and ultimately a one-world government. This is not a conspiracy theory - it is published and clear as day, even mentioned in the Copenhagen document they had hoped to have signed last year in Denmark.

Lowe obviously is not interested in the basic science which shows clearly that CO2 cannot and does not drive or threaten the climate in any way. He needs to read up on F Miskolczi and Zagoni's seminal work, very recent, which shows CO2 is quite effectively irrelevant to the climate. Google it, Lowe!

He also should can the Katrina stupidity - it makes him look even dumber than he is.

Lowe is low, intellectually and in integrity.

AcidComments

"The "climate change" scam is backed by a group of politicians and filthy rich who want to take over the world by creating a false carbon economy, huge transfers of wealth and power to the hands of a few, and ultimately a one-world government."

Yep.

And the problem is some of these Iconic socalled Climate Science Charlatans belong to those very same elite clubs and thinktanks outside of science. Shows a lack of integrity or impartiality on their part.

Funny how one of those very elite thinktanks has a string of failed predictions and projections on the fate of Humanity and the outcome of the Planet for Donkeys years and was one of the earlier original pushers of the AGW/CC Dogma. It's also funny how some of those very same Iconic Science Charaltans also have a string of failed pontifications and predictions on the outcome of the Humanity and the Planet for Donkeys years aswell. They often also have another thing in common. Ice Age Doomsayers in the 1970s!

Paul Clark

Falafulu Fisi: I went off half-cocked with an ill-thought out post. Let me clarify: I do not believe in supersymmetry nor most of the particles dreamed up by particle physicists including the Higgs boson or any gravity-related particles. I realise that the constraining fields do not create the vacuum -- I mention the vacuum because in the imperfect vacuum collisions of subatomic particles with remaining molecules in the chamber will affect the beam. These collisions increase with the length of the track. There are no results because there is an upper limit to the size that these accelerators can produce meaningful results.

It's not new particles being discovered but increasingly deluded interpretations about what the sensors are picking up.

For example, take the use of superconducting magnets. They are useful for producing high magnetic fluxes at small diameters, but at large diameters such as that of the track tube what stops them from using ordinary cooled electromagnets? It gives them a good excuse to say the helium coolant leaked and they have no results but a bunch of pretty animations of what the collisions might look like. They have no results! The LHC is just a cash cow. If this was industry taking a year off here or there it would be unacceptable. Only in academia is this level of incompetence allowed.

Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs and for some it's belief in imaginary particles. And you're welcome to it. All heil science.

The comments to this entry are closed.