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

« IPCC peer review ‘tantamount to fraud’ – IPCC official admits | Main | Al Gore’s inconvenient goof »

Comments

peter

Salinger is probably taking a leaf out of the book of the great Richard Dawkins.

He calls evolution denier history deniers in his new book.

robk

"the great Richard Dawkins"

peter, Dawkins does not believe in a god - so you must understand - he himself is not a god either. You don't have to worship him!

Ross

For Sallinger to make comments like tells me he thinks he is losing the debate and he has just lost all credibilty. Maybe there is more to his job lose at NIWA than "meets the eye"

CM

Jim has done it before too

In July this year:

Dr Salinger went on to compare his opponent to a Holocaust denier. "And I can say that because of my ethnicity."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10584007

What a nutbar.

Leon

Prick.

John Boy

Yes Jim and other Jews, we are sorry about the 1940's, and AD70 for that matter. And 930BC, 722BC, 586BC to name a few more bad dates for Jews. All these are terrible things indeed but I wish they'd stop dining out on them.

Its the Ace card to use when nothing else is working.

Whitebread

Wow! That must mean that around three quarters of the general population are holocaust deniers then. Who would have thunk it!

CM

>>>Its the Ace card to use when nothing else is working.<<<

I think it's more likely something stupid that some people fall back on when they get very frustrated.

Chris R

I think he's done us all a favour as he has portrayed his true self far more sharply than any critic could have! He is a clamouring bigot.

Chuck Bird

Ian, I heard you call in to NewstalkZB last night. You addressed a few important issues in a short time.

I do not want to see my grandchildren saddled with a needless debt for something unproven like AGW.

BammBamm

Hmmmmm

I have lots of respect for the Nazis.

Curiously, I did read that Canterbury University MA thesis on the holocaust, before it was removed from the University Library and burnt - by the Vice Chancellor.

It was well written, well researched, edited and very articulate.
Now - a masters project is meant to be a work in progress ... it is not some biblical structure.

I can't fault it as a piece of research.
If you can find a copy- read it.

BammBamm

Hmmmmm

Climate denial ... holocaust denial.

Peter Gluckman making claims about climate denial being the same as denying HIV causes AIDs ....

More denial .... ho hum~!

CM

I prefer comparisons to those who deny the moon landings or believe that 911 was an inside job. Same mix of paranoia and anger at the establishment, same seperate and glorified set of 'facts' and set of 'experts', same sense of shared adversity and feeling of fortune and superiority at being part of the minority who 'really know the truth'. Same willingness to put faith ahead of fact.
Climate change denial attracts these same personalities.

Falafulu Fisi

CM said...
I prefer comparisons to those who deny the moon landings or believe that 911 was an inside job.

Your comparison is stupid, idiotic and irrelevant.

The AGW debate is about the mathematics which is somehow has been elevated by its proponents as replacement/substitute for physical reality. This is where the debate is about : Mathematics. There is no mathematics involved either in the moonlanding or the 9/11. Can you show me some published peer review papers in physics or engineerings that the equations say definitely that the moonlanding took place according to differential calculus of Newton Laws? No such things mathematical modeling to establish that moonlanding did happen and there was no counter-argument from lunatic conspiracist that it didn't happen because their mathematical models did show that the landing was fake?

Can you see the difference here? Yep, huge huge difference and that's why your comparison is stupid & irrelevant, may be because you post for the sake of making a post and not arguing good points.

Annette Huang

Actually there are plenty of maths and physics calculations showing that the buildings in New York were demolished (therefore an "inside job") - start with building WTC7 and go on from there. Then start on the science (or lack of it) behind many of today's oft-stated myths. You might find your world-view shifting a little.

CM

Exactly. People can always find 'experts' to support their views and conveniently ignore or spin the considerable amount of evidence that is contrary. Particularly if there is money and publicity in it.

Mark P

"I prefer comparisons to those who deny the moon landings or believe that 911 was an inside job. Same mix of paranoia and anger"

You have not a shred of evidence for this outrageous statement. You'd like it to be true, sure, but that doesn't count.

I will counter, with the equally outrageous: the proponents of CO2 warming have the same mind-set as the dogmatic Marxists of the 60s and 70s. They also were absolutely certain their economics was "proved".

I have the same proof as you, so I must be right!

CM

>>>You have not a shred of evidence for this outrageous statement.<<<

I'm imagining Russell Brand delivering that line. Brilliant.

>>>You'd like it to be true, sure, but that doesn't count.<<<

No, it's true that I prefer those comparisons. Promise.

>>>I will counter, with the equally outrageous: the proponents of CO2 warming have the same mind-set as the dogmatic Marxists of the 60s and 70s. They also were absolutely certain their economics was "proved".<<<

I must have missed all that admitted uncertainty clearly set out in the Marxist manifestos.

>>>I have the same proof as you, so I must be right!<<<

I didn't claim any 'proof'. It's obviously a personal opinion. Hence the word 'prefer'. Also, yours is rubbish as relies on the ultimate denier strawman of someone claiming 'the science is settled' and/or any reputable scientists claiming there isn't any uncertainty.

AcidComments

Good news.

Since he's also in bed with Greenpeace. He has no impartiality to hold that position anyway.


Dismissal of climate man upheld

A Crown research institute was justified in firing top climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger, the Employment Relations Authority has found.

Dr Salinger had a high public profile with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research before he was dismissed in April for serious misconduct involving breaches of a media policy. The policy specifies that scientists must gain approval from managers before engaging with the media.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/
story/national/10616915/

Paul

Mighty River Power in a desperate attempt to gain credibilty for it's outrageous wind farm proposed for Palmerston North's water supply, skyline and towering over 2,000 houses is using Salinger as an expert witness. The hearings recommence in March. The Turitea wind farm is a disaster for Palmerston North. Go to this website for full information
www.palmerston-north.info

The comments to this entry are closed.