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

« Leading Gareth into deep waters | Main | Air Con book debuts at #1 on bestseller list »

Comments

robk

It would seem that both the 'left wing' and the 'right wing' may have ulterior motives for supporting the AGW hypothesis.

I can still see the emotive footage on 'Sunday'. A wave rolling through the village in PNG, blamed squarely on man-made global warming. This was repeated three or four times.

When you've got a population bombarded on a daily basis by blatant propaganda such as this, no wonder there are many out there who will answer 'Yes' to a belief in AGW.

AcidComments


We mustn't forget.

The NZ MSM has put a large amount of Manmade Climate Change Propaganda in front of the viewer and reader.

Let alone absolute 'brainwashing' in the school system.

Not much of the other viewpoint from scientists, etc, who don't accept the UN IPCC manipulations and hysteria scaremongering hype to balance the anomolies, etc from the Manmade Climate Change Doomsayers ravings!

When the MSM print maps claiming over a third of Antarctica has a 'hotspot' and going into a meltdown!

When infact it's not the case. The map claiming this absolute garbage was infact only a computer model!

Shunda Barunda

Since when has truth ever been a consensus of opinion?
Polls or not, AGW would appear to be a total load of bollocks.
When you see the manipulative tactics of programs like "Sunday" any intelligent person should imediately think something is up.
The Girls that took the video look like they were on a high school trip with a handy cam, very green (no pun intended) "documentary makers" at best.
And Gareth Morgan is the same guy that suggested we all vote "Green" to destroy our economy. He obviously has a deviant streak in him and dosen't mind a cat among the pigeons.
I would suggest he realises a carbon trading scheme would likely bring down the world economy, and he is positioning himself to make alot of money from it.
Get your investigative glasses on Ian, and find out what he is up to.

george

How about the question "Do you think climate change [warming] is a bad thing?"

I would answer in the negative. I'm bloody freezing.

Secret Squirrel

Talking of Change

Lets please have an article on Napier Ian?

Police in houses without search warrants for drugs that were never found or never existed in the first place?

Police electronic records altered on the start of the shooting?

Accountability for police actions - what really went on?

These are Questions which require a bit of Investigation.

Carol Stewart

" can still see the emotive footage on 'Sunday'. A wave rolling through the village in PNG, blamed squarely on man-made global warming. This was repeated three or four times."
Rob, I don't disagree with you here, but it's just as illogical when people mention that it's a freezing cold day as if it were proof that climate change isn't happening.
The rest of you are too silly to be worth debating with.

Shunda Barunda

"The rest of you are too silly to be worth debating with."

Says someone who hasn't read the book.

George

Sorry to have strayed into your world of superior logic with my levity.

Forgive me, mistress.

peter

Gee Ian W, you have picked on a tough fight with Gareth of Hot Topic.

He has the cheek to suggest that you publish arguments that you don't understand. Example is volcanos under the Arctic. How can this be?

Ian

I'm sorry Peter, did I miss something in Truffle's post? Did he actually prove that volcanoes under the Arctic could have no possible effect on ice melt or GHG emissions?

No, didn't think so.

Because here's what I quoted scientists saying in the book:

"The team returned with images and data showing the red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the Earth and has blown the tops of dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice.

“‘Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water,’ says geologist Robert Sohn, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, who led the expedition..."

Now Peter, you may consider yourself this blog's resident cynic, but you're not stupid. Trufflehunter likes to make sweeping generalisations about Air Con because he can't make any of his cheap shots stick.

The British Antarctic Survey has reported that volcanic activity under Antarctica's fastest moving glacier, Pine Island, may well be playing a major role in its accelerated scoot towards the sea.

Truffle's problem is that he's not an experienced news journalist, and that preaching global warming alarmism has become both his hobby and part of his income, and that it's hard for him to argue with quotes in the book that back up the various scenarios.

So, stripped of ability to land punches, he instead quotes out of context as the foundation for ad-hom attacks which keep his followers amused but ultimately add nothing to the debate.

robk

Carol

"it's just as illogical when people mention that it's a freezing cold day as if it were proof that climate change isn't happening. "

Agreed on two counts:
1. One cold day does not indicate climate change, and
2. a lot of cold days indicates the climate is changing - getting colder...

I have certainly done this (mention the cold), but as a joke! If it appeared on 'Sunday' quasi news, it would be absolutely hammered and the editor would deservedly lose their job...

Andrew Hurley

There's a problem with Ian's questions too.
For question 1) there is only one possible answer (ie you can disregard anyone who answers (b) as not having their eyes/ears open).

For question 2) both answers are correct.

So the question either has to be made far more complex to define what you are talking about, or, perhaps the definition of climate change can be captured most simply by reference to the IPCC.

Ian

Yes Andrew, you could have a variant which says climate change is a combination of natural and human factors, and then subset that out.

I was really just trying to illustrate that a reputable poll, as opposed to a push poll, can construct legitimate questions with minimal bias.

Carol Stewart

Andrew, I think there is value in determining people's underlying attitudes to climate change without making too many assumptions, in order to determine what they really think, why and what their influences are.

It's also hard to completely avoid bias. The NZIER survey that I mentioned earlier was a shocker in that it portrated the RTS negatively and talked up the negative effects, then asked people whether they supported it. Ian's questions could be seen as being biased as they imply a great level of scientific uncertainy about climate change - which you and I know not to be the case :-)

Carol Stewart

I meant the ETS, of course..

Secret Squirrel

I can't see what the debate is about.

Go to your local university, and take a good hard look at what some of the wankers pushing climate change are saying, which departments they are working in, and who is paying them.

You soon find out that these 'climate specialists' have pretty much flunked every major promotion in their lives, and have a dubious academic records.

That said, when global warming came along, it was their salvation.
Only trouble is, that according to the JPL in Pasadena, the World average temperature dropped 0.83C in a period last year alone, wiping out any 'man-made' climate change.

Also, Carbon Dioxide is NOT a greenhouse gas.
If you sit down and work out what the thermal reservoir is of the atmosphere, oceans, and land masses, you very quickly realise that any warming or cooling is a transient phenomena dependent upon incident radiation from the Sun.

If none of the idiots here has noticed, the mean solar irradiance is dropping, and we are in a solar miniumum, with no sign of recovery and stage soon.
Also - the solar wind has dropped significantly, that the background rate of cosmic rays at sea level has increased, due to poor shielding from the magnetosphere.

Well - the science aside - what about the people?

Climate change nutters? They are usually left wing pinko liberal tree hugging commies that want to save the World.

The only trouble is - that they are too fucking stupid or lazy to do the maths, and want everyone to live in Caves growing vegetables fertilised with their own faeces.

The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stone, and neither will the oil age.

Here is the real problem:
These stupid arseholes will pass on their genes to dumb down yet another generation ...

Carol Stewart

Squirrel, your standard of debate is too vile to engage with. I reckon Ian would agree.

Secret Squirrel

You are most welcome Carol!

As you have probably noticed, there is no real debate, as most people aren't informed enough to lay any sensible debate.

So, in complete rudeness to those not informed, Tough.
If you can't take the heat - then you shouldn't engage with people with flame throwers.

I don't have time for the academic niceties of how flat white sipping government servants want to pay lip service to government policy and 'carbon credit trading'. Mum and dads with 'the sky is falling' just gets my panties in a twist.

I just feel sad that old Prof Augie Auer is no longer with us. many here might remember his interview on National Radio before he died? Cutting.


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

"Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm. …If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time. The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper."


PS: BTW Carol, Ian is big enough to stand up for himself.

Secret Squirrel

Out of curiosity, has anyone here actually published any peer reviewed research on global warming?

Speak now .... please.

AcidComments

"Out of curiosity, has anyone here actually published any peer reviewed research on global warming?"

Of interest:

In “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” McLean writes, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.”

In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.

Adds McLean, “The problems continue into the authorship of these reports. According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by governments or explicitly invited by scientists already associated with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-minded individuals.”


Concludes McLean, “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.”

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/McLean_IPCC_press_release_9-10-07.pdf

With each passing day, more and more current and former members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are stepping out of the shadows to suggest that this group’s alarmist conclusions concerning global warming are more based in myth than science.

"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process."

For those that are interested, this is why anthropogenic global warming is regularly referred to as junk science. As Segalstad stated, rather than base future expectations on known past and present observations, the IPCC has created models to predict future events lacking any historical basis.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

The comments to this entry are closed.