Written By:
James Henderson - Date published:
9:12 am, March 18th, 2013 - 172 comments
Categories: bill english, climate change, disaster, farming -
Tags:
Corin Dann interviewed Bill English very well on climate change and the drought yesterday on Q+A. It was clear that English has his head in the dust. Despite claiming that the government is leading on climate change, English would barely let the ‘cc’ words pass his lips and referred ‘dry cycles’, as if climate change is just temporary, so not really worth worrying about.
If this is leadership, god help us.
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
BUT Hooten say this in NBR
English leading debate on climate change
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/english-leading-debate-climate-change-weekend-review-lg-137202
Yeah, but leading it in which direction?
“It was clear that English has his head in the dust.”
It was clear that English has a head full of dust…..FIFY
He is such a plonker poor old Billy. Bob Dylan would put it into words better than i.
Chorus from “Idiot Wind” comes to mind:
“Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the back roads headin’ south,
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You’re an idiot, BILL.
It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe.”
like
The wind or at least the west wind and its accompanying storm tracks are an important factor in the future climate of nz.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7933226/Kiwi-climate-gives-glimpse-into-future
how is the ozone going; last couple of days it was apparent to me just how “burny’ the sun felt, even through a cotton shirt.(personally, I avoid working outdoors in the midday sun if possible)
love it!!!!!
‘Lol’. He is transparently smarter/wealthier/more respected/successful/cooler and noteworthy then you. God I can’t wait to see him debate whoever the Greens/Labour vomit up in the finance leaders debates.
Will he tell us how successful he was with Solid Energy? Or is that question too hard for you? Bill English cool? I almost feel sorry for you.
Similar thoughts, as in : “It was clear that English…” cetra…
John Key and Mr Joyce must have very dusty arses.
With Obama signalling a new policy direction I expect Bill will get an elbow from our sycophant in chief.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/obama-will-use-nixon-era-law-to-fight-climate-change.html
“these NEPA reviews don’t mandate a specific course of action” ; gonna slow their economy down though 🙂
La Nina is not climate change. It’s part of a broader weather pattern that causes droughts and have occurred as far back as 1904-1905.
It’s not so much the occurrence of the droughts, but the severity.
“La Nina is not climate change. It’s part of a broader weather pattern that causes droughts and have occurred as far back as 1904-1905.”
Citation needed, then please put your statement in the context of climate change, so we can see your point better.
🙄
However ENSO is directly influenced by warming seas. Thus saying it’s not climate change is pretty fucking ignorant of you (and Bill English).
Does L Nina cause the extreme weather events in the US, Australia, UK etc?
The enso complex the southern oscillation is a dynamic system ie internal to the climate sysrtem,it is a random system with no preferred periodicity, and a nice example of both synchronization and self organization .
The largest examples of catastrophic influences by the system such as el nino were in the 17th and 18 th centuries.
i’m in love again
corin dann was particularly good..i hope we see more of that..
..(english seemed quite shocked at danns refusal to just nod along to/with the spin ..
..his lizard eyes widened..then narrowed..)
..dann had hints of that tenacity/doggedness/efficient-bullshit-detectors early on..and then was emasculated by compering the breakfast variety show..(as nutritious as coco-pops..!..)
..good to see he/dann has returned to real journalism..
..phillip ure..
The spin that La Nina causes droughts? That’s not spin.
Actually Nick the fact is that the El Nino phase of the ENSO is the period when drought is most likely. During El Nino the Pacific (-the oceans are currently gaining heat at the rate of 3 – 4 Hiroshima Bombs per second) begins to release the heat stored in the La Nina phase. -The fact that we have had serious drought in a La Nina phase indicates that we are heading for serious trouble when the Pacific begins to enter a El Nino. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Ocean temperatures around Australia reached record levels – that and the jet streams are now almost static in their patterns – causing some regions to become predominantly High Pressure Zones.
Link?
James Renwick has been looking at these factors in recent times and while I can’t find the recent article where he highlighted this – the academic papers are here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00077.1?af=R&
So what do you suggest?
Bill English should have spent an hour prattling on about Climate Change and how we need to “take action” and other empty platitudes?
Doesn’t seem to have worked so far. Most people dialed out of this a long time ago
Says who? Last time I checked you’re an authority on precisely nothing at all.
ONE DEGREE in 100 years , and no change in the last16 years why would the GOVT or anyone panic.
If change is occuring we have plenty of time to manage it.
I thought the comedy part of Q&A was a real laugh , it had me in fits rolling on the carpet.
The old girl from the greens was halarious,
Quote” coal is a sunset industry”
only to be told that India has 600 MILLION people without electricity and that over the next 30 years coal fired generation is being established to provide the essential in life.
China has a similar problem.
If coal is dying out its going to be a very slow death.
Rember PEAK OIL the greens were on about a while ago , well it seems that since we started using oil we have consumed about 1.5 TRILLION barrels and guess what ,
we have about 6 TRILLION barrels left ,around about 250 years worth, so much for oil running out.
This highlites the thinking of the greens , they are POISON BEWARE.
Sorry I forgot “THE OTHER on post.
[lprent: No problem. fixed. ]
And 4 degrees by end of this century.
Oh, it’s occurring and we don’t have time to manage it especially considering the fact that the politicians, especially those on the right, are trying hard to ignore it.
Peak Oil isn’t about running out of oil but about when production peaks – which happened for conventional oil about 2k5/6. Which means that, from here on out, oil gets more expensive – exactly as predicted.
Tell me, did you notice that oil is no longer priced at $10/bbl?
Also, Germany is building 24 new coal fired power stations over the next few years.
“If change is occuring we have plenty of time to manage it.”
If it was a smooth continuum which responded predictably and smoothly to varying factors you might have a point. On the other hand if it’s prone to tipping points – particularly ones with run-away effects such as the collapse of the North Atlantic conveyor* – you’re talking self-delusional rubbish.
*http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic
The left has fucked the whole climate change movement
Climate change is now seen as a vehicle to push socialist policy, not saving the planet.
You fuckwits have denied it for so long and now you’re bleating because the left has a cogent policy response? What a pathetic whining spectacle you are.
Should have kept politics out of it, no one gives a shit any more.
If it happens, it happens.
You mendacious wretch, the only people politicising it are right wing gimps like you.
Maybe people just want the claims to be commensurate with the actual science. If you’re going to slaughter most of the cows as if that’s going to stop everyone in China/India/Africa wanting a Buick, then at least don’t exaggerate or pontificate. Remember global cooling? Because Carbon dioxide levels were too low? The world was going to end by 1986? Maybe Bill is just being reasonable before we all go and throw acid at a fishing ship
Hey, cretin, your “global cooling” fantasy is utterly destroyed right here in this very thread. Perhaps you should read before you type, no?
Yes I would agree with that
Two fuckwits whining in unison.
Your comment is particularly apposite to this discussion.
Any serious discussion of climate change is responded by abusive and intolerant remarks
It is hardly surprising no one is listening or the remotest bit interested in you.
“Serious discussion”? From you? What a joke. All you’ve done is whine and bleat; socialism this, fraud that, hoax the other, Climategate, hockey sticks, deny deny deny.
You think you deserve respect and courtesy after spending the last thirty years trying to destroy any and all attempts at mitigation? What a tool.
“All you’ve done is whine and bleat; socialism this, fraud that, hoax the other, Climategate, hockey sticks, deny deny deny”
Are you able to provide me links where I said any of this?
Furthermore, are you able to provide evidence that I have spent the last 30 years doing this?
I think you might be confused
You, as representative of right wing nut jobs everywhere.
Say what you like about Maggie Thatcher, at least she had the intellectual capacity to recognise the problem, but since then wingnuts have done their best to derail the conversation and defame the protagonists.
You occupy the same moral ground as tobacco barons and you want me to be polite to you? Keep whining.
Classic
You are quite funny really.
Whatever. I’m not the one trying to blame The Greenhouse Effect on socialism.
Well, try this then.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html#ixzz2NmaxG0lP
Climatology by The Mail on Sunday?
Got anything credible?
The Fail on Sunday article even repeats this little howler:
“The evidence shows CO2 levels follow temperature…”
And then there’s the science.
Give it up, dupe.
Seems as though Andy Scrase’s deserved reputation precedes him.
Seems as though Andy Scrase’s deserved reputation precedes him
At least I am posting under my real name whilst being threatened by anonymous KKK like trolls. Do you actually have anything of substance to offer?
Grumpy – I refer you to my post on this from another thread.
At least I am posting under my real name whilst being threatened by anonymous KKK like trolls.
Wow, that’s rich coming from a consummate user of sock puppets, some of which were unsuspecting and real people’s identities.
Oh wait, I’ll take that back, consummate user of sock puppets until you were unmasked by your own stupidity and blundering out your identity. You’ve been pretty brave since then.
Do you actually have anything of substance to offer?
How about these? just for a start….
Andy in action, readers should have no trouble figuring who is who:
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/climate-scientist-sues-newspaper-for-false-reporting/#comment-15876
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/climate-scientist-sues-newspaper-for-false-reporting/#comment-15893
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/chris-mooney-interviews-michael-mann-on-climategate/#comment-15243
[lprent: I was going to chastise you about trying to out someone on this site. The rule is that you cannot unless the person has acknowledged it themselves and you point to it for a moderator to see. However I can’t see what in the hell those links have to with anything. So I was considering donating you a week’s ban for wasting my time looking down stupid links instead. But really can’t be bothered as it appears you are stating an opinion rather than having anything to back your vagueness (pot smoker perhaps?) – and Ken will enjoy having the links open. But it is a dumbarse thing to do and repetition could be dangerous for your commenting.
Read the policy about irritating moderators by wasting their time. ]
I love how Scrase’s website tries to pretend he has associates. Funny how none of them agreed to be named 😆
Here you go lPrent
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/chris-mooney-interviews-michael-mann-on-climategate/#comment-15244
It’s the relevant comment was in last of the three links I supplied. Commenter “Worthless Troll” seemed to effectively “out” himself, don’t blame the messenger.
Quite understand if you struggled with the earlier two links and gave up, it’s tiresome reading all that denier drivel and I ought to have been more targeted.with the link.
As you said “effectively” but it is not definitely. Worthless Troll is both a handle and a description. Basically it is supposition.
My website is out of date – I am now a one person limited company. Thanks for all the positive and encouraging comments. Now that you have my contact details you can email or phone me for a convivial chat about your favorite topic.
Three. Even the IPCC has stepped back from it’s previous predictions.
The science is settled, AGW is dead…….
Really?
No.
Nothing like a wingnut for stupid wishful thinking.
I’ve often speculated that BM stands for Bloody Moron. Today it was confirmed to be so.
+1
Not even the Aussies are buying this rubbish. AGW is dead, changing the name to Climate Change to have a dollar each way is also dead. No warming for 15 years and only 1 degree in the last century!
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/hottest-summer-record-in-australia-not-even-close-says-uah-satellite-data/
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/our-hottest-summer-on-land-and-sea/story-e6frg6nf-1226595952853
It seems that reality disagrees with you.
Oh dear…..
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Whitehouse-GT_Standstill.pdf
🙄
Oh joy, another idiot who can’t sanity-check their source. Try again when they bother submitting it to peer review for a climatology journal, because from memory Whitehouse fails hard at time series stats. And really, 60+ pages to do something that should only take 12 at most due to it being time series stats? + that quote at the start is so totes screaming out desperation and persecution complex.
(Please feed Nick with sleep/chocolate to initiate sufficient motivation to begin full, double fisted fisking)
Also:
http://weltanschuuang.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/two-views-on-global-warming-standstill.html
OK Nick, get back to us when you have fisted this article.
In the meantime, we’ll assume it is wrong because of the author’s affiliations.
If it is not an Approved Source ™ it is wrong. That’s how climate science ™ works.
You can’t even understand (or summarise) Nick’s argument, so how you expect to be able to follow science? Wingnut fail.
🙄
Or it could be that peer review is a rather good filter for removing crap, it doesn’t work all the time and the big journals have a habit over-hyping stuff, but it still fucking works.
And frankly, if someone has a history of being wrong on a topic, then it’s usually highly probable inference that what they say about that topic now and in the future will also be wrong. Like say Ken Ham on evolution, and Ken Ring on anything to do with the weather and earthquakes.
It does help too if you actually grasp how science works.
So if peer review is a good filter for science, how did Marcott et al get accepted for publication?
It has been widely shredded from multiple directions.
The same could be said of Gergis et al,
Can’t find any paper by Marcott et al. Scholar asks “Did you mean: Marcotte et al?” Spelling fail? Illiterate dupe?
So what were the criticisms of A probabilistic functional network of yeast genes? I’m sure it’s fascinazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I think this is what andy is rabbitting on about
http://klimaatverandering.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b.png
He doesn’t like it because it replicates the work of Mann whom he HATES – why – because of course Mann et al show that we really are having an effecton climate in a big way and that – andy for whatever reason has to deny.
It replicates a similar piece of junk science, if that’s what you mean.
The critiques of this paper are so damning it must be a candidate for withdrawal from publication, just like Gergis et al.
“The critiques of this paper are so damning it must be a candidate for withdrawal from publication” lol
Like the Greenland ice temps for instance? 🙂 Idiot!That “critique” is so flawed it leaks like a sieve.
I told you to stay away from Watts – he is damaging what ever rational functionality you have left
AndyS, please tell me you aren’t relying on Watts! Surely Macro is being uncharitable, isn’t he? “BEST” find another echo chamber, eh 😆
Would someone please show me where I referenced Watts?
This piece of “science” by Marcott et al has been comprehensively rubbished by Steve McIntyre, suyts space, Judith Curry and many others.
Even Skeptical Science won’t touch it with a bargepole
Bullshit again andy
http://www.skepticalscience.com/oilprice-watts-interview.html
McIntyre! Curry! OMG! I’m quaking in my boots! If you think those charlatans represent good science you a very very sadly mistaken.
McIntyre can’t figure out the difference between 2 and 49!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm
As for madam Curry – well I guess she has to make a name for herself – someone who really hasn’t a clue.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm
How touching. A long discussion of the Marcott paper at guess where.
I shouldn’t read it if I were you though – your sacred cows come in for a fair amount of ridicule and contempt. Almost as much as that earned by Andy Scrase. Now there’s a credibility-free zone if ever there was one.
Google for “Marcott et al”
About 99,800 results
Obviously you need to use the quote signs.
Glad I could help.
P.S. Marcott et al 2013 will shortly be withdrawn from Science magazine for being a fabrication.
Says who? Please tell me you aren’t taking Watts’ word for it. McIntyre? When the paper isn’t withdrawn will you feel like a dupe, or a tool?
He wont feel a thing, thanks to denial-o-googles. Making inconvenient facts invisible since forever!*
@jaymam – So where exactly are the letters to Science then critiquing Marcott et al 2013? Oh right, McIntyre etc only do science-by-blog as they usually get papers rejected by journals that cover climate science due to being utterly wrongzors. In fact they have such a long history of getting things completely wrong, there’s really no reason to pay attention to them except for amusement/head-desking at their latest line of bullshit
/yawn
Anyhow, here’s the point where the local fauna @realclimate discuss Marcott et al: http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=14729#comment-323859
_____________________
*note – use of this product will not prevent you from dying of treatable diseases that you don’t believe in, nor prevent you from being imprisoned for tax fraud
Since there is no Reply button for One Tāne Huna (why not?) I’ll have to reply here.
“Says who?”
How about Nick Stokes. If you don’t know who he is, you are not doing enough reading to comment on climate.
http://moyhu.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/next-stage-of-marcott-et-al-study.html
[lprent: The usual reason will be that the comments are indented by 10 – which is the limit. Then it stops putting in a reply button. ]
I note Nick Stokes’ article fails to mention any withdrawal. I note his (Stokes’) errors are highlighted in the comments.
lolwut?
Read both his posts on Marcott et al 2013, both are about how the proxy data is weighted and the subsequent effects this then has on the temperature reconstruction. Amusingly enough, his analysis mostly matches Marcott et al’s reconstruction, so how exactly Nick Stoke’s posts invalidate Marcott et al is somewhat beyond my ability* to work out.
And even in the first post he doesn’t slam Marcott et al, he’s just trying to understand their analysis methodology…
Ah, so, maybe you should read that post?
_________________________________
*slightly impaired, ‘NickS needs sleep, 2 day hell-tramp damage too, so theory of mind systems pooped
“One Tāne Huna … I note Nick Stokes’ article fails to mention any withdrawal.”
But he says “I tried first using the published dates, and got a fairly unsurprising result, similar to the paper, except that it lacked a recent spike visible there.”
i.e. no recent spike means no hockey stick, therefore the main impact of the paper is discredited by Nick Stokes, who is a supporter of AGW. Is he the same person as NickS?
Jaymam, are you blind? Every single one of Stokes’ “new” plots shows a “hockey stick” spike.
So does the BEST study.
So does Wahl & Ammann 2007.
So does Huang 2000.
So does Smith 2006.
So does Oerlemans 2005.
And so, of course does Mann et al 1999.
You aren’t very good at this, are you?
Claiming that Marcott will be withdrawn from Science, then linking to an article that more-or-less validates Marcott. Pathetic.
“One Tāne Huna … Jaymam, are you blind? Every single one of Stokes’ “new” plots shows a “hockey stick” spike.”
On Stokes’s stupid webpage, all the graphs are chopped off on the right, so no spikes were visible. However the “spikes” are merely an artifact from poor processing. NONE of the original individual data had hockey sticks.
I repeat what he says on his website “I tried first using the published dates, and got a fairly unsurprising result, similar to the paper, except that it lacked a recent spike visible there.”
I’ll give up trying to reply when there is no reply button.
Jaymam, you poor intewebz n00b, right click, then open the image in a new tab. The spikes are all there. But as BEST etc. amply demonstrate, if there’s no hockey stick in Stokes’ analysis, then his analysis is wrong, because everything from the instrumental temperature record to stalagmites to boreholes agree with Mann, and none of your delusional denials will change that.
The problem here is that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
🙄
Learn2read
And Marcott?: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/03/11/a-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-years/
-read the comment thread for key information.
Paper: content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf
whoops, should have previewed that, second link:
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11300 years
Derp, thanks Draco!
Read the link above, completely discredits your journo fan bois…….
Then read this one, and realise that you’ve been getting your “science” from politicians.
Nigel Lawson? Pfft.
An ACC denial website as your source? yeah, no.
A warmist scaremonger website as your source? yeah, no.
“We are certainly not taking a critical stance on the basic science of the greenhouse effect or the fact that CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are having an effect on the climate.”
Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF
Oops. Your “source” confirms the science. Wingnut fail. 😆
learn-2-googlescholar-n00b
Oh right, actual science is totes too “hard” for you to understand. Especially when you have no understanding of how science works and instead rely on naive social-trust based network weighting for information checking.
If you were a teenager, it’d be cute, but since you’re not, it’s just pathetic.
So Learn-2-science-n00b
The Aussies, via Murdoch and the fossil fuel oligarchs, are buying a lot of rubbish. If they buy enough to vote Abbott in, they’ll be paying for it for years. Now please go back to jerking off to your autographed picture of Monckton.
It seems that the only people still believing in catastrophic AGW are the same ones happy to hand over economic sovereignty to the UN (based on self serving IPCC scare mongers) whilst condemning TPPA for the same reasons.. hilarious…
Maybe taxing the rich pricks would fix it..
It seems that weasel words demonstrate bad faith, stupidity, or both
When you have no credible response, get personal, insult.. Standard tactics.. no?
When you start your drivel with “it seems” what is there to respond to?
You didn’t make a credible argument in the first place.
Mark you have hit on an interesting observation, one which you can see from OTHs response, is relevant!
Climate change is happening, but not only for the reasons those here, who think they *have it under control* are prepared to entertain!
Its like trying to discuss ways to address inequality in NZ, without wanting to address the monetary supply problem first, because monetary supply influences every conversation which might require a policy, or solution, and as such its not possible to arrive at optimal policy or solutions, because people are not addressing the full information set!
Geo-engineering is happening, been going on for decades, actually it began almost 100 years ago, (don’t ask for further links, go find them yourselves)
Not considering GE in a discussion around CC, AGW, GW, polluting the planet to death (whatever its being called this week), is a fatally flawed exercise, because again like the monetary supply analogy, people are not discussing the problems with a full information set!
There you go dupe. Project Onan’s team leader believes in you 😆
No, I said Mark had *hit on an interesting, relevant observation*, in observing, that there is little difference between the *pushers* of the IPCC and the *pushers* of the TPPA cart.
Other than the way most here choose to latch onto their respective products, of course!
Both are selling the same product, in case you can’t work it out for yourself!
I can understand your drivel, but that doesn’t make it any more compelling, or credible, or anything other than tiresome and cretinous.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the evidence keeps on piling up. It’s all a bit complicated for wingnut minds. Better go back to The Daily Fail.
Yeah, I remember a whole lot of apparently overwhelming evidence for catastrophic cooling back in the 70’s. Must have been sorted by all the hot air spouted by lefties when blogs were invented..
Bollocks. You’ve been duped. Again. Another wingnut fail 😆
+1
basic historiography isn’t that hard people, so stop fucking it up.
…desperately links to similarly ideologically tainted comments.. cannot formulate or forward own arguments due to fear of failure or humiliation.. was this in your School Report? Or maybe it said “shows good understanding of historic class struggle, however unable to easily adapt to reality, will be a willing mouthpiece with little potential for personal success and requires lots of State support” 🙂
No. I’ve demonstrated that your comment at 13 is based on lies, linked to proof that they are lies. I’m prepared to offer you some charity, and assume that you have been duped, rather than that you are a deliberate and cynical liar. The next time, dupe I won’t be so charitable.
🙄
This is teh internets n00b, we link in order to not waste time or repeat what someone else has already written and assume others are capable of at least reading the fucking links.
I disagree.. you link to either other posts/comments from similarly delusional people here or elsewhere on the web. When that fails you insult those with opposing views, backed by as much “evidence” as you. Intellect fail…
Keep on failing, dupe.
/smugface
Daaaawwww
It’s so cute when they try and sound intellectual.
Especially more so since Mark thinks anyone who accepts the science on climate change is “delusional”, showing a fundamental failure on his own part to understand science101, sanity-check his own assumptions and actually bother doing some basic research. i.e. many secondary sources will usually link to primary science literature or data records and if need be provide rational for data analysis methodology.
Thus this leads to networks of information sources and arguments that need to be checked and weighed objectively, or if one knows they lack the necessary background to grasp whatever information, check the fucking experts. Failure to do so is usually due to individuals relying on binary narratives, giving similar weighting to both sides “importance”, rather than looking at the body of evidence. Or the age old stupid habit of a-priori assumptions that are inflexible, with biblical creationists being the perfect example.
Lolz, are you not PG by another name back here too shy to use your ‘other’ handle…
[lprent: see http://thestandard.org.nz/the-difference/#comment-606776 ]
Mark, if you can remember a whole lot of apparently overwhelming evidence, you should be able to give us a source for it. Can you please share that with us? Or if sharing offends your Randian purity, feel free to charge for it.
But I’m interested in your whakapapa.. or are you just a house honky desperate for a bit of brown in you?
Not just a dupe, but a racist dupe, then. Classy.
Classy, pull the racist card.. let me rephrase that that then for you.. are you a house-nigger?
Are you a childish dupe? I note you failed to answer my 13.1.2.1, and went straight to an ad hominem approach.
Was it too hard for you? Or did the humiliation of being shown up as a dupe push some buttons?
Your 13.1.2.1 referring to my 13.. when you said it was all lies I assumed that finally you got it and were referring to IPCC.. no such luck I guess as we can call you many things, but not clever. So how about that whakapapa?…or is that you Hans?
As my link clearly demonstrates, there were far more papers concerning the Greenhouse Effect in the ’70’s than any discussing global cooling. The next time you repeat the lie, please remember the humiliation of being exposed as a dupe and have a little sob.
I’m sure your ancestors had better ethics, but perhaps they were dupes too.
Lolz, PG you naughty little child stop trying to inflame the conversation with such rude references…
[lprent: see http://thestandard.org.nz/the-difference/#comment-606776 ]
this is a good read.. says it all really..
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/tag/predictions-that-failed/
No it’s not.
DTB, please don’t confuse what is a good read with that which opens your eyes and challenges you. It is an essential read for those that have been duped, or are here duping..
Ooh, you learned a new word. Polly wanna cracker? 😆
A good read as far as science goes comes from the scientists – not the delusional people denying what the scientists are saying.
Bullshit – Scientists are as corruptable and controllable as any other group on earth B!
Simple as that!
*corruptible.
I figure if it’s going to feature so large in your fantasy life you might as well learn to spell it.
So you don’t argue the statement is correct then – Hard to argue it really given how things look to be playing out.
My interest lies in what the response is going to be once it comes out into the light, if that’s even possible with control over the media, huge influence over universities, and funding streams all stitched up!
Makes me wonder what all the genuine *dupes* you refer to, believe their life is going to be worth when TSHTF. When I use the tern *dupes* I mean the likes of the tv, radio, politicians et al, who god knows how/why felt like playing along with all this, making crazy statements, corrupt policy, finger poiting, diversion, deflection, and straight up lies!,
All to protect what, what is it they’re protecting, because they must be into some real life crazy, if they believe their actions will not catch up with them., the same as the decisions/outputs of their actions, will catch up with the rest of us!
Just keep correcting typo’s, and writing insults online, that will help, greatly, on ya!
🙄
Project Onan coming along nicely is it? Do you honestly think I’m going to waste my time arguing with the embodiment of insincerity?
Even if you wish with every ounce of your being, that I was going to be way off the mark, I won’t be, and its not even because I do anything more than pay attention Bloke, and am not too scared to stick my head up!
Ignoring, or pretending to ignore as much of what I post as possible, does not make it go away, or less real, so come on, put your smarts to good use, and get active, I reckon you have lots to offer!
Insincere /snort – My goodness you’re really not very good at this online evaluation thingy eh!
🙄
I suggest you stick your head somewhere less constricting in future.
For those interested in a factual approach, NZ climate scientists talking about their work in this new film: http://thiniceclimate.org/.
Tom, I think everyone is too busy shouting at each other, but thanks for the link
Thanks Tom – I look foward to seeing it.
It would be well worthwhile if the climate changed so that summer was 6 months and each of autumn, winter and spring 2 months.
As for Double Dipton, it looks like he’s pushing the “there’s nothing we can do about it” line as hard as he can. Wouldn’t want the cockies getting the idea that their bought and paid for politicians have betrayed them now, would we?
Is that just like your Union Organisation that masquerades as a Labour Party ?
No.
Sorry, I’ll rephrase that.
No, dumbarse.
Well, first of all what makes you think that NZ killing off a quarter of it’s dairy herd and replacing MFAT, Treasury and MED with Greenpeace is going to make all those people opposite to you in outlook, intelligence and work-ethic in China/India and Africa suddenly be happy to sacrifice a future mercedes for the great white morange One Tane Huna? That one thousandth of one percentage point difference is going to make a massive practical difference. Similarly I think you’ll find they are ‘doing something about it’, they just aren’t going to impoverish the nation for benefit of the befuddled weed addled conscience of the great white morange.
Hey, dipshit, what the fuck are you blithering about? Nothing I wrote, that’s for sure.
There is nothing funnier or more nauseating in this world than apologists for fossil fuels claiming to have scientific credibility. Those who denied the health problems of tobacco have found a new stage, but are reading from the same playbook. The only scumbags that I have seen come close are those who claim that the US government sets up school shootings and uses actors as grieving parents in order to take their guns off them. The world has gone mad, and the sooner those who hate scientists so much stop using technology developed because of scientific research, the better. At least it’d keep them off the internet.
Our entire civilisation breathes fossil fuels like it’s oxygen to an athlete.
The Government needs to be putting $5B to $10B per annum towards infrastructure and societal changes for a fossil fuel free future, and to do so consistently for the next 20 years.
There is no way under our current political and economic system, nor the leadership they create, that this will occur.
We should rail against English. But it makes no difference. The game changer is not likely to be found in either National or Labour. Mainstream political parties by definition, are only interested in representing what they believe to be the status quo. And currently the status quo that one barrel of oil generates about $1500 in GDP (at a guess) is more powerful than just about any other narrative out there.
Hard to argue with that, especially when each barrel of oil also happens to generate Megabytes of ludicrous anti-science ravings by those wedded to the status quo. The only change I’d make to your post would be to swap “steroids” for “oxygen”. Oxygen is natural.
I figure that there ain’t nothing more natural than a lump of anthracite…
A lump of anthracite as a natural remedy for climate deniers? Applied appropriately, I can see the advantages.
Nothing like a bit of charcoal to settle down a nauseas tummy…
[deleted]
[lprent: Violated the privacy policy. You don’t out commentators unless you can put to something where they have explicitly outed themselves on the net. Most of the “outings” have about as much truth in them as a Whaleoil’s making bullshit about our authors over the years – most of them are just outright lies. So we simply don’t tolerate them without credible backing from the person themselves. ]
…only getting worse for the warmist alarmists.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/the-hockey-stick-broken-again.php
[lprent: Aside from treating research from what? 25 years ago as if it is an article of faith, your recent comments look like you’re a fire-and-forget link-whoring troll. Don’t just link without explanation. Explain why you think it is relevant. Argue your case. So others can tell you why not. If you keep just plastering our site, then you will lose the ability to do so.
You used to be able to argue – have you lost that skill? ]
Which hockey stick?
This one?
Or this one?
Or this one?
Or this one?
Get a life, loser.
you are the Bomb Tane
Thanks Ghost.
Looks like pretty comprehensive allegations of fraud in that link.
Anyway, as a previous comment said, the far left have destroyed whatever credibility the warmists ever had. It’s all about income protection for vested “scientific” interests and redistribution of wealth for the rebadged far left as “Green”.
The “science” is over and the bullshit will just quietly fade away like Y2K
pray, do you honestly believe climate change is not afoot
Who cares, it’s become a political bandwagon for the left. As such it has no credibility.
Yep. The moment the Green Party started harping on about the sun rising in the East, the concept lost all credibility and it promptly failed to do so.
lolz
Fraud at Berkeley?
“Richard Muller is leading a group of physicists, statisticians, and climatologists to re-estimate the yearly global average temperature, from which we can say such things like this year was warmer than last but not warmer than three years ago. Muller’s project is a good idea, and his named team are certainly up to it.”
Anthony Watts (before Muller and his team produced the “wrong” results and Watts packed a little tanty.)
More evidence just keeps piling up, as pointed out up thread. Sea ice extent in the Arctic, ice mass loss in the Antarctic, permafrost in Siberia, melting clathrates, drought, floods, heat waves, glaciers, migration patterns, species coverage.
Meanwhile, all you’ve got is the same tired old bullshit, and Mann’s hockey stick has withstood every witless challenge. Not that you’d have a clue about that.
Ask a sparky what happens when a dipole encounters a magnetic field sometime, and then get a life, loser.
Pay attention now, Grumpy:
Macro linked this up-thread but obviously you aren’t here to read. For those who think that maybe there’s something in the so-called allegations of “fraud”, read the link and the ensuing commentary.
My emphasis.
OK Grumpy you can go back to sleep now.
It’s all about income protection for vested “scientific” interests
OH SHIT! He’s rumbled the gig peeps. time to fess up.
Here’s how it goes down.
Whenever someone graduates their bachelors degree in climate science and applies to do post grad, they get taken aside and told that from here on in they have to fudge their data. Everyone agrees to this in the hope of sometime getting a job in the future. Everyone. All of them. Not one of them says anything, not even those who don’t get jobs, or those who drop out. In fact most of those who don’t get jobs are actually hired by the UN and they live under a mountain somewhere and they are the ones who make up all the numbers and send them out to all the officially working climate scientists who cut and paste them into ‘their’ papers. One time an oil exec offered a scientist twice the money to start doing real science but he just laughed and stroked his cat and said not likely mate you don’t know how powerful these neckbeards are ice cores don’t talk to me about ice cores he said and then he said I’ve said too much and if that doesn’t prove it then what does eh what does. But that’s just the tip of the surface.
Science denial is science denial is science denial. Only the labels change. It’s a ritual dance as old as the hills.
Behold…
It’s all about income protection for vested “scientific” interests and redistribution of wealth for the rebadged far left as “Green”.
Claim CA321.1:
“The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.”
The “science” is over and the bullshit will just quietly fade away like Y2K
Claim CA110:
Evolution is a theory in crisis; it will soon be widely rejected.
Will someone please give the “Global warming is a myth and conspiracy” trolls new “facts” they can trot out – the old discredited ones do get rather wearisome on hearing them for the 300th time!
This thread is why I normally stay away from climate change “discussions” – it always seems to bring out the worst in everyone…….
The term for such points is PRATTs.