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

« Free book - The Divinity Code | Main | »

Comments

TWE

Haha, nothing like shooting down some know-it-all "academics", good job. I think NIWA might have realised that they've screwed up big time and are looking for a way to get out without looking completely foolish. Booting Salinger out was a good start..

CM

How on earth could anyone consider that to be an 'independent' review??!

"Perhaps once they can forecast next weekend’s weather with God-breathed accuracy they’ll have a more faithful following."

Good grief.

CM

Even the Daily Mail is starting to give up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1301713/The-crack-roof-world-Yes-global-warming-real--deeply-worrying.html#ixzz0wCtGTuw8

Ouch.

This follows the National Post and Washington Post.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080102850.html

Nevermind, you've still got Esther Henderson:

“It really grates with us,” she said, “because our animals do what God made them to do naturally.”

Comedy gold Jerry.

Ian B

Jonathon Boston left?

That shows the hallmarks of a true zealot.

MacDoctor

"We must not think that food is special."

Spoken like a man who has never been hungry in his life. I would dearly love to make him distribute food to the starving in Africa. The man seriously lacks the humility a few weeks of being surrounded by the truly hungry would give him.

John Boy

At least a debate was held. If the MSM did the same maybe it would be perceived as more credible so why not do it?

The comments on the Hanlon article are an interesting mix and not everyone believes. Me neither.

The ice must be recycled to some degree as part of the water cycle so why not expect variations in that? As some bloggers noted, Greenland was not always as cold as it is currently and there is some evidence that temp changes in the past were rapid and substantial - both up and down. It wasn't cars and coal.

CM


>>>Jonathon Boston left?

That shows the hallmarks of a true zealot.<<<

It's awesome when people say stuff like that and then find that the person had another appointment and was always going to have to leave then. Do you know for a fact that this wasn't the case?

>>>If the MSM did the same maybe it would be perceived as more credible so why not do it?<<<

The MSM would be more credible if they stopped their obsession with 'false balance'.

>>>As some bloggers noted, Greenland was not always as cold as it is currently and there is some evidence that temp changes in the past were rapid and substantial - both up and down. It wasn't cars and coal.<<<

Scientists have sufficient evidence to indicate why it is happening this time. I have never heard a scientist claim that it was cars and coal during any other rapid temperature change. That is a fallacy argument attempting to make scientists appear to be stupid.

CM

From the review:

"Jonathan Boston, who repeatedly advocated increasing costs to change people’s behaviour, responded that “we must not think that food is special.”"

Ian, can you please provide some more context behind this. It sounds suspiciously like a partial quote. I'm sure you and others are sick of being constantly accused of quote-mining.....

CM

>>>Jonathon Boston left?

That shows the hallmarks of a true zealot.<<<

From Boston's presentation:

"Second, I have chosen to use the word ‘mainstream’ to characterize the views of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Often these views are referred to as the scientific ‘consensus’. Yet while there is a substantial measure of agreement on, and high confidence about, various important issues in relation to climate change (e.g. that the planet is warming and that human beings are largely responsible), there remains much debate on other issues (e.g. by how much and how fast the planet will warm in the future). Further, on most matters there are not two opposing camps – ‘believers’ and ‘sceptics’ – but instead a spectrum of views, with numerous different positions, interpretations and assessments. Nor can we say that the science of climate change is ‘settled’. Many of the key scientific findings are undoubtedly very well established, but to the extent that science proceeds on the basis of falsifiable hypotheses and conjectures, then it is never completely ‘settled’. It always requires openness to new possibilities and discoveries. Accordingly, I prefer ‘mainstream’ over ‘consensus’, believing it to be more accurate and less provocative."

http://www.visionnetwork.org.nz/attachments/713_Evidence%20of%20Denial-the%20case%20of%20climate%20change-Boston.doc

Yeah, obviously a completely blind, ideological fool.

Ian B

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/recent-talk-of-mine.html

Roger Pielke Jr makes a lot of sense in this video.

Lowering GDP is not an option.

BammBamm

These global warming people might be on to something.

Why should the sub-human on this Earth breed? Why should the NZ taxpayer support less than ordinary people in our society?
These people consume valuable carbon resources, and cost the state - as well as emitting CO2.

New Zealand should treat its people, like it treats its farm livestock.
There need to be permits to breed issued, after all, reproduction of failed genetic units should no longer be a right - but a privilege.

If anyone doesn't pass NCEA - they should be automatically referred for sterilisation, along with the mentally ill, and the habitually deformed.

Imagine how much this would save the education, health and social welfare sectors?
Just imagine how much productivity would increase, how much more efficient and clean New Zealand would be?

Lets get to the bottom line here - and fast.
New Zealands future depends on the quality of its people. That's eugenics for anyone who wants to argue further.

After all - do it for the penguins and polar bears ... imagine all that CO2 belched out by useless eaters and defective sub-humans?

BammBamm

Oh - and for the more rational amongst you: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/120363/hubbard-probe-could-hit-mps

What is the role of Mr English and TRH John Key in destabilising this investment company - through rumour - and letting the Wolves feed on it?

Ian B

“It really grates with us,” she said, “because our animals do what God made them to do naturally.”

Comedy gold Jerry.

Can you explain the joke CM?

Or why, perhaps, being charged under the ETS for composting foodstuffs is "un-natural". I find this very amusing, that the NZ government treats us like morons.

BammBamm

That's because In, NZers ARE morons.

CM

>>>These global warming people might be on to something....etc etc<<<

Making up rubbish just further undermines any valid point you might have.

The point of making changes it to make the world a more sustainable place. I.e. it's ultimately self-serving for us to ensure we can 'use' the planet for as long as possible.

CM

>>>Oh - and for the more rational amongst you: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/120363/hubbard-probe-could-hit-mps

What is the role of Mr English and TRH John Key in destabilising this investment company - through rumour - and letting the Wolves feed on it?<<<

More conspiracies I see. Life must be very tiring when you see them everywhere.

It was 'destabilised' by woeful business practices (which were also unlawful).

Hubbard is now spending over $1 million in lawyers fees fighting something pointlessly. That's all money those investors won't get back.

Ian B

The point of making changes it to make the world a more sustainable place

It's funny how the environmentalists are so convinced that they are onto a good thing.

Driving millions into poverty, covering the country in ugly windfarms that destroy nature, kill birds, and have little energy value, is all considered a noble cause.

At the same time, these tedious socialist fossils that inhabit universities, sitting on their fat salaries, preach at us about how we need to lead more sustainable lives, when at the same time they are adding no value whatsoever to humanity.

CM

>>>Can you explain the joke CM?<<<

The comedy is the same people who complain about govt interference and who love to trumpet the free market from the rooftops start screaming when market-failures are finally dealt with.
The fact is, costs aren't being paid by those that incur them. We're all subsidising these people.

>>>Or why, perhaps, being charged under the ETS for composting foodstuffs is "un-natural". I find this very amusing, that the NZ government treats us like morons.<<<

How it's described is irrelevant. Call it what you like. It's the EFFECT that is being addressed. (Or least attempted). Composting foodstuffs has a negative externality. Who should pay for that externality?

This is all about allocating costs appropriately (i.e. being incurred by those who create the costs). Just because people have had a free ride for so long, doesn't mean the ride shouldn't end.

Or are you an anti-market communist?

CM

>>>It's funny how the environmentalists are so convinced that they are onto a good thing.<<<

Please explain how sustainability is not a good thing.

>>>Driving millions into poverty<<<

How will this occur? How are (tens of?) millions not driven into poverty via effects of climate change? That's what you've got to use as a comparison if you're going to have an honest discussion.

>>>covering the country in ugly windfarms that destroy nature<<<

Again, even if you were correct, how is that worse than the alternative?
But you're not correct - the country doesn't have to be 'covered'.

>>>kill birds<<<

How? Again, the alternative is pretty bleak for all animals and birds.

>>>and have little energy value<<<

You'll get no arguments from me that a variety of the best and most efficient alternative forms of energy should be pursued.

>>>is all considered a noble cause.<<<

Who cares what's 'noble'. I'm much more interested in making things more sustainable so my grandkids have a chance of living a decent life. Think of sustainability in an incredibly selfish way like that if it's the only way that works.

>>>At the same time, these tedious socialist fossils<<<

You mean the ones that promote sustainability via correcting market failure?
Correcting market failure is capitalist, not socialist.

>>>that inhabit universities, sitting on their fat salaries<<<

Weak. Irrelevant.

>>>preach at us about how we need to lead more sustainable lives, when at the same time they are adding no value whatsoever to humanity.<<<

Well quite clearly they are if we move towards a more sustainable future.

Why are you an anti-market, pro-subsidy communist Ian?

Ian B

Composting foodstuffs has a negative externality. Who should pay for that externality?

So, if a deciduous forest drops its leaves, and these leaves naturally compost and produce methane, this is a negative externality that someone has to pay for.

What a complete and utter load of tosh.

Composting foodstuffs IS NOT A THREAT TO OUR SURVIVAL AS A HUMAN RACE, AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

It is only little old libtard NZ that even thinks this is a problem.
We are an international joke.
The Chinese must be laughing at us.

The comments to this entry are closed.