Comments for The Standard

Comment on Open mike 27/05/2012 by Colonial Viper

Colonial Viper — Sun, 27 May 2012 09:00:20 +0000

Where the “rich” are the top 1/4 of households.

Comment on Not with a bang but a whimper by Kotahi Tane Huna

Kotahi Tane Huna — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:57:28 +0000

Matthew Hooten, there is nothing about peer-review failures or exaggeration in the Oxburgh report. Nothing in the House of Commons investigation. Either your memory is faulty, you have been duped, or you are fabricating.

Comment on Open mike 27/05/2012 by John72

John72 — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:56:34 +0000

Half Crown M. congratulations. You have my full support. This generation does not know what hardship and work is and they do not want to know. You are not a voice in the wilderness. Your most vocal critics are the lazy ones. They cannot defend their position, only offer personal abuse. Perhaps this is a reflection of the standard of education (or role models) offered by TV. The rich are with us always. They are unhappy and the envious are unhappy.
How many readers keep a Diary? 10 min. at the end of each day, writing up the Diary, is meditation. Very beneficial.

Comment on Not with a bang but a whimper by Jackal

Jackal — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:55:18 +0000

You’re presuming that mankind can reduce its reliance on polluting systems to such an extent that will allow developments before the effects of climate change really take hold and before cheap fuel that has driven most of the worlds advances runs out.

There is no way for you to know what future developments will be able to be undertaken, and therefore your reliance on this mystical technological saviour is highly foolish!

It’s naive and as backwards as John Key claiming that climate change is a hoax in November 2006… some 40 years after scientists first raised concerns about anthropomorphic climate change.

Comment on Sunday reading by mickysavage

mickysavage — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:47:05 +0000

Excellent comment Bunji and so brave.

The approaches of the major parties rely on growth to get us out of our current bind. Stopping growth and dealing with debt is beyond the comprehension of all current politicians except IMHO David Cunliffe and some of the Greens.

To get us out of this mess we need to cut consumption really fast, start living better quality lives, set up alternatives, such as education to soak up unemployment and keep people engaged, share the wealth around so that we can do this, and avoid revolution.

This will not be easy. Cool heads and persuading people that the last few decades of brainwashing of the benefits of consumption will be required.

Comment on Asset sales: still bad by Dr Terry

Dr Terry — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:42:46 +0000

Keep this going! I am encouraged by these lines of thinking.(At last, I find that some New Zealanders still do think!)

Comment on Not with a bang but a whimper by Murray Olsen

Murray Olsen — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:41:22 +0000

C12 pretends to believe in AGW and therefore gets more of the lucrative research monies and can have bigger families? I’ve tried to give as ridiculous an answer as possible, but I’m sure the deniers can come up with worse.

Comment on Not with a bang but a whimper by Murray Olsen

Murray Olsen — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:37:45 +0000

All the main deniers lie. They just make stuff up, like Monckton. They’re well funded and they communicate in sound bites, which is what the media love. Scientists in general are not as good as communicating with the public because they deal with complex issues and do not want to simplify things beyond any sensible recognition. Explaining things in depth makes for boring news or television whereas claiming that scientists are part of a well funded conspiracy appeals to those who wouldn’t know a hyperbolic tangent if it jumped up and bit them and are suspicious of those who do. In this sense, one of our main problems is a public without the critical faculties to evaluate the evidence and larger class sizes and charter schools will only make this worse. As they’re designed to do.

Comment on Not with a bang but a whimper by Jackal

Jackal — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:37:13 +0000

Then you should really read what the IPCC states: “Model-based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow.” Being that scientists have observed an acceleration in ice flow rate since 2007, how can you claim that you’re using the “extreme end of the IPCC’s worst case scenario” when they do not take into account all the known factors involved?

You have not provided the “extreme end of the IPCC’s worst case scenario” Matthew Hooton because they do not provide one. You’ve provided a range that does not include all the factors involved. It should therefore not be waived around as gospel that there’s no reason to have concern about the effects of anthropomorphic climate change.

Comment on Not with a bang but a whimper by Kotahi Tane Huna

Kotahi Tane Huna — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:29:57 +0000

“The inquiries did find a culture of scientists trying to exaggerate their findings when presenting it publicly,”

I do not recall a single investigation that concluded anything of the sort. Link please.

Comment on Not with a bang but a whimper by Matthew Hooton

Matthew Hooton — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:27:25 +0000

No, the findings of the formal inquiries, including by the university. Much was made of the fact that these inquiries all found that the poor behaviour did not undermine the view that AGW is real, and that there was no actual malpractice, but that wasn’t the point. The inquiries did find a culture of scientists trying to exaggerate their findings when presenting it publicly, not being open to other ideas and not making their data available for peer review. So I prefer to rely on the IPCC reports.

Comment on Key’s plan arse backwards by Matthew

Matthew — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:25:37 +0000

Getting back to surplus is no big deal, in fact its blindingly easy. Just slash spending until it is less than revenue. Regardless of whether the long-term effects of that slashing will cause massive extra costs in the future, it is that simple.
NACT could, in all honesty, be in surplus by the next budget, but the slashing would be far too noticable. By doing it slowly, they think we will assume they have some sort of plan, which of course they dont.

Comment on Not with a bang but a whimper by Barry

Barry — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:21:16 +0000

Mathew,

A1F1 is BAU. All aother scenarios require some meaningful (i.e. considerably better than what we are achieving now) attempt at reducing emissions. The NZ government aspires to a reduction but our emissions continue to grow.

You can argue about the language in a link from the post, but it doesn’t change the need to do something to cut emissions drastically.

You say we should wait for the next IPCC report, or wait until the results of warming is clearer, but the longer we wait the harder it will be to keep the world in a state that we can recognise.

Comment on Open mike 27/05/2012 by Kotahi Tane Huna

Kotahi Tane Huna — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:18:39 +0000

First the Serco incompetence. Then the National Party in denial.

Comment on Not with a bang but a whimper by Reagan Cline

Reagan Cline — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:14:18 +0000

Jimmie’s lasr two paragraphs are true, aren’t they ?

Climate change is a long term process and the outcomes are not certain enough to predict definite catastrophe.

Most people have been earbashed enough by now to at leasy think about reducing use of internal combustion engines fuelled with fossil fuel and buying plastic.

At least one Auckland primar school is awarding stickers for green behaviours, the green party vote is increasing, so NZers might eventually do more greeen stuff like walk, turn the light off, open the window a fraction and do without a dehumidifier, bring food home in a string bag etc etc etc

So fucking boring !!!

Most people will not change because thery have more important things to think about and doomsday is still way ou of sight.

Think global act lccal. Small is beautiful.