ACT unauthorised

43 comments on “ACT unauthorised ”

• Comments are now closed

1. sean 1

   5 September 2008 at 1:21 pm

   Global warming? What about the fact that the global temperature and sea levels have dropped in the last decade?

   Don’t let facts get in the way of good spin though…..

   Next you’ll be trying to convince us that cows cause global warming, even though the carbon they release was taken out of the air by the grass during photosynthesis…..
2. Robinsod 2

   5 September 2008 at 1:26 pm

   sean you retard – cows produce methane (CH4) which has a much greater warming potential than carbon dioxide (CO2). There’s a lot more wrong with your comment than just that but given you can’t even get the fourth from chemistry right I don’t think there’s any point in explaining further…
3. outofbed 3

   5 September 2008 at 1:26 pm

   Sean

   Global warming? What about the fact that the global temperature and sea levels have dropped in the last decade?

   Try saying that to a polar bear. The Northwest passage and the North east passage are now both open for the first time in 125000 years.
   Don’t let the facts get in the wat of spin though Sean
4. yl 4

   5 September 2008 at 1:27 pm

   oh Sean,

   if you are going to make a statement back it up.

   I would love to see something that says temp and see levels have dropeed.

   please Sean, post the link
5. Felix 5

   5 September 2008 at 1:40 pm

   But but but that’s what Wodney sez!
6. Tamaki Resident 6

   5 September 2008 at 1:40 pm

   My guess is that the lack of proper authorisation was a deliberate ommission in the hope that they will get to look like martyrs (and get exposure in the media) when they are fined or whatever the penalty is. Once againj, just Rodney playing games because he know their policies are unpalatable to the vast majority od the electorate.
7. Chris 7

   5 September 2008 at 1:45 pm

   I could tell a wee story about an ACT candidate in a small city who fancies himself as a crusader for justice.
   A part of this crusade involves postage and stationary carrying an ACT letter head, and, so I’ve been told, a parliamentary crest.
   Who to believe?.
8. djp 8

   5 September 2008 at 1:52 pm

   Robinsod you angry man, there have been millions of ruminants on earth for many years (think bison). Also it doesnt take much to create methane from grass, all you need are organic matter, microbes and no oxygen (think swamps, land fills, lake bottoms etc).
9. Idiot/Savant 9

   5 September 2008 at 1:55 pm

   except when it comes to properly authorising our election advertisements

   Maybe, maybe not. The Electoral Commission has found that invitations to public meetings with party leaders are not necessarily election advertisements (e.g.). OTOH, context is important, and counting against this one is the fact that the invitation is from an ACT candidate, the nearness of the election, and the prominent use of the ACT Party logo and slogan.

   It’s worth noting that this would probably have to have been authorised under the old Electoral Act, so it likely does now as well. So, make a complaint, and see how it goes.
10. Scribe 10

    5 September 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Who are these bashers? And what do they have against Mr Hide?
11. IrishBill 11

    5 September 2008 at 1:57 pm

    “So, make a complaint, and see how it goes.”

    I would recommend not giving Rodney the oxygen.
12. MonkeyKing 12

    5 September 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Says the man who just did.
13. Tane 13

    5 September 2008 at 2:23 pm

    … no he didn’t.
14. IrishBill 14

    5 September 2008 at 2:25 pm

    I didn’t put the post up you idiot.
15. Rex Widerstrom 15

    5 September 2008 at 2:45 pm

    “Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.” – Gandhi.
16. lprent 16

    5 September 2008 at 2:49 pm

    sean: I see that IB has pointed out one of your errors. I’ll deal with another.

    Global warming? What about the fact that the global temperature and sea levels have dropped in the last decade?

    The short answer to that is “where?” If you want to be a ignorant dipshit, then at least provide a link so I can have pleasure tearing a spare rectum into your sources. Otherwise don’t bother repeating simple ignorant preferences.

    Short climate change primer for idiots (like you):-

    It is called climate change for a reason. Although the overall tempature trend may be upwards, that will result in changes to ocean currents, airflows, local climates that could cause local cooling. For instance melting of polar ice is likely to cause short-term (less than 100 years) local cooling where polar cold currents touch land in temperate regions.

    As an example, when we have had recent glaciations in the northern hemisphere, each has caused the tropics average daytime tempature to rise. Reason is that precipitation drops and the deserts expand. Deserts are warmer during the day (and bloody cold at night).

    BTW: You notice the word glaciation? That is what you’d call an “ice-age” – which is of course wrong. We’ve been in an ice age for the last 40 million years or so, since Antarticia moved into the south polar region. This has been allowing glaciations for the last 20 million years or so.

    Now why is that relevant? Well the whole of human civilsation has happened in the last 10 thousand years. This a period that has been incredibly stable in climatic terms. Now we’re destroying that climatic stability so you can destroy your grandkids life in by driving a SUV now.

    I hate stupid arseholes that never bothered to learn enough science to understand simple issues, who then pontificate as if they did. I think they’re called bullshitters, and sean you’re one of them. I gather that Act are more idiot deniers.

    Damn I miss the spellchecker. But Chrome is really nice apart from that.
17. Mike Collins 17

    5 September 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Lynn – “I hate stupid arseholes that never bothered to learn enough science to understand simple issues, who then pontificate as if they did.”

    And you’re what a sysop right? Rodney Hide is the only MP in Parliament with a degree in Ecology. That would make him more qualified than you it would seem to discuss matters environmental.
18. randal 18

    5 September 2008 at 3:56 pm

    where did he buy it from…one of those mills in the U.S. If wodeny had a degwee in ecology and I doubt that he has then he would not talk such nonsense and act like the little jibbering squib that he is. I think you are lying about wodenys degwee.
19. Felix 19

    5 September 2008 at 4:10 pm

    As spotted by Scribe, that really is a terrible (or terribly funny) ad placement.
20. Tamaki Resident 20

    5 September 2008 at 4:11 pm

    Rodney’s degree is in economics isn’t it?
21. Mike Collins 21

    5 September 2008 at 4:15 pm

    I guarantee you he has the degree. However having a degree in ecology does not mean one must follow blindly like a lemming, what certain doomsayers prophecise. It actually means looking at evidence in a certain way before drawing conclusions.

    It is interesting to note that upon hearing of this credential you immediately think that Rodney must have obtained this from a “mill in the U.S.” I would hope a more rational person would say – “Well I didn’t know that. I guess that gives what he is saying a little more credence and I should explore it a little more. Might not mean he is right but worth looking into.”

    Mind you judging by your spelling it is possible you spent all your time in Science class at school as opposed English and therefore you know everything already.
22. Mike Collins 22

    5 September 2008 at 4:16 pm

    TR – The masters is in economics. He has a bachelors in Ecology.
23. Pascal's bookie 23

    5 September 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Is ecology climate science? Or just close enough for talking points?
24. Matthew Pilott 24

    5 September 2008 at 4:35 pm

    Would this make Hide a case in point, with respect to the expression “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”?

    This argument about data perplexes me. I’d have thought it would be more clear cut, but from whatI have seen, normal scientific practice is being sledged by people without the knowledge to realise it is normal scientific practice.

    An example was a comment from a Wellington-based NIWA scientist. He had been attacked (or at least his data had been) because a temperature dataset had been changed, for all points prior to 1990 or thereabouts.

    The ‘deniers’ attacked him for adjusting his data to suit a climate change model. He pointed out that recordings taken prior to the dataset moderation were taken at sea level. Those subsequent to the change were recorded at 180m ASL. Due to the adiabatic lapse rate, the dataset for historical data was modified (‘cooled’) to be consistent with subsequent data.

    According to the denier, the books were cooked. According to the scientific community, the data was presented as consistent. Examples of this abound, and every time I see someone saying everything’s getting cooler, people I would percieve to be the authorities on the subject point out their error, in a similar fashion to the above.
25. randal 25

    5 September 2008 at 4:43 pm

    thats the first time I ever heard of a bachelors in ecology and a masters in economics…methinks you are just telling the biggest fibs you can knowing how much effort it will take to fact check. I think he has a degree of narcissm and duplicitousness and is obsessive compulsive but ecology?…..nah.
26. Dom 26

    5 September 2008 at 4:51 pm

    Wikipedia says zoology and botany…

    I did hear him mention that he had a degree that was ‘environmentally relevant’ or similar words at the leaders debate TVNZ7 did for their launch so he’s definitely studied in this area.
27. Mike Collins 27

    5 September 2008 at 4:55 pm

    “Is ecology climate science? Or just close enough for talking points?”

    No it’s not. I was just pointing out the irony of Lynn’s statement lambasting people for being deniers due to a lack of science training. Mind you I think an understanding of scientific precepts is important for evaluating evidence and experiments. Useful for deterimining the wheat from the chaff if you will.

    Randal – I am not telling fibs. This is a matter of public record. As amusing as the idea is of wasting your time be getting you to check facts, it never occured to me before you mentioned it. And to be honest I don’t really care what you think. It is obvious you will only believe what you want to believe anyway.
28. Lew 28

    5 September 2008 at 5:36 pm

    MC: “an understanding of scientific precepts is important for evaluating evidence and experiments.”

    Quite right. This is why the only rational position on climate change, for anyone who values the scientific method and the honest evaluation of evidence but lacks specific expertise in this field, is to accept the scientific consensus provided by the IPCC. To do otherwise is to privilege the voices of a tiny minority of those properly qualified to profess an opinion over those of the vast majority, on an ideological basis.

    An MP once said to me, when I told him I was a political scientist, that there’s no science in politics and there’s no politics to science. By choosing to believe a small group of experts over a large group, all else being equal, you’re not making a scientific or even a rational choice – you’re making a political one. By choosing the voice of one MP – with a bachelor’s degree in something you admit isn’t really climate science, over the established body of properly qualified opinion, you’re making an explicitly ideological choice. That’s fine – but it pays to realise that’s what you’re doing.

    Randal: “methinks you are just telling the biggest fibs you can knowing how much effort it will take to fact check.”

    About 15 seconds worth of effort. Clearly too much for you. But then, so are capital letters, spelling, grammar and punctuation. Or we could just simplify that down to `writing’.

    L
29. bill brown 29

    5 September 2008 at 7:44 pm

    “Rodney Hide is the only MP in Parliament with a degree in Ecology.”

    Well then he should know better shouldn’t he.

    Or does he, but he’s only making a noise to get on the TV?
30. Kinoy001 30

    5 September 2008 at 8:29 pm

    Recently in the Northern Courier (Johnsonville area) Colin du Plessis had a very similar advert with to the one above, again with no authorisation…

    Does ACT think that they are above the law but then Rodney Hide will do anything to get dirt on Winston Peters…

    Such Idiots…
31. Pascal's bookie 31

    5 September 2008 at 8:33 pm

    I was just pointing out the irony of Lynn’s statement lambasting people for being deniers due to a lack of science training. Mind you I think an understanding of scientific precepts is important for evaluating evidence and experiments. Useful for deterimining the wheat from the chaff if you will.

    Good enough for a talking point then.

    Interestingly it’s the same basic talking point that Intelligent Design advocates use when promoting their list of ‘500 (or however many) scientists that reject Darwinism’.

    It turns out of course that most of them aren’t trained in evolutionary science, have strange ideas about it and religious reasons to doubt it. But the fact that have a degree in chemistry or whatever somehow qualifies them to judge the scientific merit of evolutionary theories.

    Though I’m sure you can explain why this is in no way similar.
32. randal 32

    5 September 2008 at 8:47 pm

    mike collins, why is it obvious I only believe what I want to believe? give one good reason why you bleive that. I am always open to persuasion if the evidence warrants it. However I am not going to believe any old assertion that some party hack puts up here without any corroboration. is that alright with you old chap?
33. Dean 33

    5 September 2008 at 10:06 pm

    Pascal:

    “Interestingly it’s the same basic talking point that Intelligent Design advocates use when promoting their list of ‘500 (or however many) scientists that reject Darwinism’.”

    Do you believe that sceintists who oppose the theory of man made climate change are of the same ilk as those who promote intelligent design? Or in fact use the same logic or lines of reasoning?
34. Pascal's bookie 34

    5 September 2008 at 10:39 pm

    Dean. Ummm. Not in such absolute terms, not all of them and not all of the lines of argument.

    However, they rhyme.

    All I said was what I said.

    I was talking about this argument about Hide’s expertise and how it might be useful, and why it should be respected. I compared it to one argument used by ID promoters and asked if it was not analogous.

    It’s semantically interesting that you used the word ‘oppose’ rather than ‘disagree with’, but I’ll not compare that what creationists do, lest I offend.
35. lprent 35

    5 September 2008 at 10:41 pm

    And you’re what a sysop right? Rodney Hide is the only MP in Parliament with a degree in Ecology. That would make him more qualified than you it would seem to discuss matters environmental.

    My first degree was a BSc in Earth Sciences . ie that interesting mix between geology, water, climate, etc in the the late 70’s. Did a few years working with it before I went into management and did an MBA. but I’ve kept up the reading.

    The programming was just a hobby that went a bit extreme and an almost 20 year career. I’v only ever done 3rd year papers in CompSci while I was contracting. Also done enough papers in history and anthro. Sysop’ing is just a hobby.

    Anyway, I’d say that I know a wee bit about the topic of climate change, but I’m not an expert. In my non-expert (but well informed) opinion, the IPCC is probably overly conservative, which is why they keep revising their estimates towards worse cases rather than the other way as the data keeps coming in.

    However in the above case I was lambasting sean for making an blanket assertion without describing where the data was obtained (or for that matter the period that the data was obtained over). Specifically I’d expect to see all kinds of variances in the general trend of the data because we’re talking about a system moving heat around. It isn’t a simple laminar system, it is a turbulent system – you get all kinds of interesting and often contradictory data points.

    You should have a look at measuring heat dispersal in a kiln, oven, or an engine, or even a house. It is an area that we still have problems estimating in any detail. Exactly the same issues for a lithosphere and above.
36. Draco TB 36

    6 September 2008 at 12:05 am

    the IPCC is probably overly conservative,

    You forgot to put in politicized:
    The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions – as sought by Tony Blair. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing treaty which the US administration opposes.
37. Mike Collins 37

    6 September 2008 at 1:48 am

    My apologies Lynn. Didn’t realise you had a background in science. Well done you.
38. ghostwhowalks 38

    6 September 2008 at 10:00 am

    Just for the record Rodneys masters degree in economics is from Montana State University , “in record time”.

    However his first bachelors was in botany & zoology and a later ‘degree’ was in ´resource management’ from Lincoln.

    Not ecology.

    So MSU isnt a degree mill but strangely Lincoln & Canterbury werent up to scratch for our budding young academic ( who knew?)
39. Lew 39

    6 September 2008 at 11:46 am

    Lynn: “you get all kinds of interesting and often contradictory data points.”

    This is the crux of why there is still live debate on climate science – even properly-qualified people can reasonably disagree, and in some cases (though not the most public cases) they do so in a fairly professional manner, i.e, with a view to furthering science by holding each other to high standards of rigour.

    So while I think accepting the IPCC is only rational response for someone who isn’t a specialist in the field, specialists may well disagree – that’s their prerogative. But until the balance shifts significantly more away from the IPCC’s findings, they still represents orthodoxy.

    L
40. Paul Robeson 40

    6 September 2008 at 7:08 pm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

    I think this is the link Sean is referring to. As much as I dislike to support someone who clearly is trying not look at the whole issue.

    NB. Sean, took 1/2 a second and two searches to find on google. You come in for less ridicule if you reference, and don’t include sound offs about cows etc…
41. Paul Robeson 41

    6 September 2008 at 7:10 pm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

    sorry if this comes up twice.

    If it doesn’t- this is the link I think Sean is talking about.

    @Sean: reference your points and don’t mix them with blatantly wrong claims about cows and life will be much smoother.
42. killinginthenameof 42

    6 September 2008 at 7:45 pm

    “Kinoy001
    September 5, 2008 at 8:29 pm
    Recently in the Northern Courier (Johnsonville area) Colin du Plessis had a very similar advert with to the one above, again with no authorisation
    ”

    Thats interesting, I think I remember that name from a letter too the editor, either in the Dompost or which ever small local I get, and im fairly sure he wasn’t writing as and ACT candidate. Shall do some further digging, hope those papers havent gone in the fire!
43. LindsayM 43

    10 September 2008 at 11:05 pm

    Kinoy001 what a cretin you are and a waste of space. I know Colin well and he is a very dedicated hard working person. How dare you attack someone of his integrity-what have you ever done that is of any value…grow up and grow some bollocks you creep!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS