English in denial on climate change

Written By: - 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.

172 comments on “English in denial on climate change ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. fender 2
    18 March 2013 at 10:13 am

    “It was clear that English has his head in the dust.”

    It was clear that English has a head full of dust…..FIFY

    • Andre 2.1
      18 March 2013 at 10:32 am

      He is such a plonker poor old Billy. Bob Dylan would put it into words better than i.

      • fender 2.1.1
        18 March 2013 at 10:49 am

        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.”

      • UpandComer 2.1.2
        18 March 2013 at 9:42 pm

        ‘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.

        • Murray Olsen 2.1.2.1
          18 March 2013 at 9:58 pm

          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.

    • Tim 2.2
      18 March 2013 at 1:46 pm

      Similar thoughts, as in : “It was clear that English…” cetra…
      John Key and Mr Joyce must have very dusty arses.

  3. joe90 3
    18 March 2013 at 10:33 am

    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

    • ghostrider888 3.1
      18 March 2013 at 11:14 am

      “these NEPA reviews don’t mandate a specific course of action” ; gonna slow their economy down though 🙂

  4. Nick K 4
    18 March 2013 at 10:43 am

    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.

  5. Dv 5
    18 March 2013 at 11:00 am

    Does L Nina cause the extreme weather events in the US, Australia, UK etc?

    • Poission 5.1
      18 March 2013 at 11:11 am

      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.

  6. phillip ure 6
    18 March 2013 at 12:14 pm

    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..

    • Nick K 6.1
      18 March 2013 at 12:47 pm

      The spin that La Nina causes droughts? That’s not spin.

      • Macro 6.1.1
        18 March 2013 at 1:33 pm

        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.

  7. andyS 7
    18 March 2013 at 1:01 pm

    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

    • One Tāne Huna 7.1
      18 March 2013 at 1:28 pm

      Says who? Last time I checked you’re an authority on precisely nothing at all.

  8. rich the other 8
    18 March 2013 at 1:01 pm

    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.

    • rich the other 8.1
      18 March 2013 at 1:42 pm

      Sorry I forgot “THE OTHER on post.

      [lprent: No problem. fixed. ]

    • Draco T Bastard 8.2
      18 March 2013 at 2:21 pm

      ONE DEGREE in 100 years , and no change in the last16 years why would the GOVT or anyone panic.

      And 4 degrees by end of this century.

      If change is occuring we have plenty of time to manage it.

      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.

      we have about 6 TRILLION barrels left ,around about 250 years worth, so much for oil running out.

      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?

    • andyS 8.3
      18 March 2013 at 2:21 pm

      Also, Germany is building 24 new coal fired power stations over the next few years.

    • Tiresias 8.4
      18 March 2013 at 4:22 pm

      “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

  9. BM 9
    18 March 2013 at 1:06 pm

    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.

    • One Tāne Huna 9.1
      18 March 2013 at 1:27 pm

      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.

      • BM 9.1.1
        18 March 2013 at 1:58 pm

        Should have kept politics out of it, no one gives a shit any more.
        If it happens, it happens.

        • One Tāne Huna 9.1.1.1
          18 March 2013 at 1:59 pm

          You mendacious wretch, the only people politicising it are right wing gimps like you.

      • UpandComer 9.1.2
        18 March 2013 at 9:30 pm

        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

        • One Tāne Huna 9.1.2.1
          18 March 2013 at 10:06 pm

          Hey, cretin, your “global cooling” fantasy is utterly destroyed right here in this very thread. Perhaps you should read before you type, no?

    • andyS 9.2
      18 March 2013 at 1:39 pm

      Yes I would agree with that

      • One Tāne Huna 9.2.1
        18 March 2013 at 1:44 pm

        Two fuckwits whining in unison.

        • andyS 9.2.1.1
          18 March 2013 at 1:47 pm

          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.

        • grumpy 9.2.1.2
          18 March 2013 at 2:23 pm

          Three. Even the IPCC has stepped back from it’s previous predictions.

          The science is settled, AGW is dead…….

          • One Tāne Huna 9.2.1.2.1
            18 March 2013 at 2:30 pm

            Really?

            No.

            the IPCC surface temperature projections have been exceptionally accurate (although they have under-predicted many other climate variables, such as Arctic sea ice extent decline and sea level rise).

            Nothing like a wingnut for stupid wishful thinking.

    • fender 9.3
      18 March 2013 at 1:43 pm

      I’ve often speculated that BM stands for Bloody Moron. Today it was confirmed to be so.

  10. grumpy 10
    18 March 2013 at 2:20 pm

    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/

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      18 March 2013 at 2:28 pm

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/our-hottest-summer-on-land-and-sea/story-e6frg6nf-1226595952853

      THE summer of 2012-13 was not only Australia’s hottest on land — our seas were also warmer than ever.

      It seems that reality disagrees with you.

        • NickS 10.1.1.1
          18 March 2013 at 3:01 pm

          🙄

          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

          • andyS 10.1.1.1.1
            18 March 2013 at 3:08 pm

            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.

            • One Tāne Huna 10.1.1.1.1.1
              18 March 2013 at 3:26 pm

              You can’t even understand (or summarise) Nick’s argument, so how you expect to be able to follow science? Wingnut fail.

            • NickS 10.1.1.1.1.2
              18 March 2013 at 3:31 pm

              🙄

              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.

              • andyS …
                18 March 2013 at 3:40 pm

                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,

                • One Tāne Huna …
                  18 March 2013 at 3:48 pm

                  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

                  • Macro …
                    18 March 2013 at 4:19 pm

                    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.

                    • andyS …
                      18 March 2013 at 4:34 pm

                      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.

                    • Macro …
                      18 March 2013 at 4:59 pm

                      “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

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      18 March 2013 at 5:11 pm

                      AndyS, please tell me you aren’t relying on Watts! Surely Macro is being uncharitable, isn’t he? “BEST” find another echo chamber, eh 😆

                    • andyS …
                      18 March 2013 at 9:26 pm

                      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

                    • Macro …
                      18 March 2013 at 9:52 pm

                      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

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      18 March 2013 at 9:52 pm

                      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.

                  • jaymam …
                    18 March 2013 at 9:22 pm

                    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.

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      18 March 2013 at 9:34 pm

                      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?

                    • NickS …
                      18 March 2013 at 10:00 pm

                      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

                    • jaymam …
                      18 March 2013 at 10:09 pm

                      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. ]

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      18 March 2013 at 10:13 pm

                      I note Nick Stokes’ article fails to mention any withdrawal. I note his (Stokes’) errors are highlighted in the comments.

                    • NickS …
                      18 March 2013 at 10:27 pm

                      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

                    • jaymam …
                      19 March 2013 at 12:34 am

                      “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?

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      19 March 2013 at 6:53 am

                      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.

                    • jaymam …
                      19 March 2013 at 7:40 pm

                      “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.

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      20 March 2013 at 9:20 am

                      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.

                • NickS …
                  18 March 2013 at 4:16 pm

                  🙄

                  it doesn’t work all the time

                  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

      • grumpy 10.1.2
        18 March 2013 at 2:36 pm

        Read the link above, completely discredits your journo fan bois…….

        • One Tāne Huna 10.1.2.1
          18 March 2013 at 2:46 pm

          Then read this one, and realise that you’ve been getting your “science” from politicians.

          Nigel Lawson? Pfft.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.2
          18 March 2013 at 2:47 pm

          An ACC denial website as your source? yeah, no.

          • grumpy 10.1.2.2.1
            18 March 2013 at 2:52 pm

            A warmist scaremonger website as your source? yeah, no.

            • One Tāne Huna 10.1.2.2.1.1
              18 March 2013 at 3:04 pm

              “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. 😆

            • NickS 10.1.2.2.1.2
              18 March 2013 at 3:07 pm

              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

    • Murray Olsen 10.2
      18 March 2013 at 7:02 pm

      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.

  11. Mark 11
    18 March 2013 at 2:54 pm

    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..

    • One Tāne Huna 11.1
      18 March 2013 at 3:00 pm

      It seems that weasel words demonstrate bad faith, stupidity, or both

      • Mark 11.1.1
        18 March 2013 at 3:07 pm

        When you have no credible response, get personal, insult.. Standard tactics.. no?

        • One Tāne Huna 11.1.1.1
          18 March 2013 at 3:08 pm

          When you start your drivel with “it seems” what is there to respond to?

        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.2
          18 March 2013 at 3:36 pm

          You didn’t make a credible argument in the first place.

        • muzza 11.1.1.3
          18 March 2013 at 3:53 pm

          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!

          • One Tāne Huna 11.1.1.3.1
            18 March 2013 at 4:00 pm

            There you go dupe. Project Onan’s team leader believes in you 😆

            • muzza 11.1.1.3.1.1
              18 March 2013 at 4:26 pm

              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!

              • One Tāne Huna …
                18 March 2013 at 4:28 pm

                I can understand your drivel, but that doesn’t make it any more compelling, or credible, or anything other than tiresome and cretinous.

  12. One Tāne Huna 12
    18 March 2013 at 2:58 pm

    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.

  13. Mark 13
    18 March 2013 at 3:03 pm

    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..

    • One Tāne Huna 13.1
      18 March 2013 at 3:07 pm

      Bollocks. You’ve been duped. Again. Another wingnut fail 😆

      • NickS 13.1.1
        18 March 2013 at 3:09 pm

        +1

        basic historiography isn’t that hard people, so stop fucking it up.

      • Mark 13.1.2
        18 March 2013 at 3:21 pm

        …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” 🙂

        • One Tāne Huna 13.1.2.1
          18 March 2013 at 3:32 pm

          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.

        • NickS 13.1.2.2
          18 March 2013 at 3:38 pm

          🙄

          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.

          • Mark 13.1.2.2.1
            18 March 2013 at 3:43 pm

            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…

            • One Tāne Huna 13.1.2.2.1.1
              18 March 2013 at 3:58 pm

              Keep on failing, dupe.

            • NickS 13.1.2.2.1.2
              18 March 2013 at 4:02 pm

              /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.

    • bad12 13.2
      18 March 2013 at 3:29 pm

      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 ]

    • Murray Olsen 13.3
      18 March 2013 at 7:11 pm

      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.

  14. Mark 14
    18 March 2013 at 3:25 pm

    But I’m interested in your whakapapa.. or are you just a house honky desperate for a bit of brown in you?

    • One Tāne Huna 14.1
      18 March 2013 at 3:35 pm

      Not just a dupe, but a racist dupe, then. Classy.

      • Mark 14.1.1
        18 March 2013 at 3:38 pm

        Classy, pull the racist card.. let me rephrase that that then for you.. are you a house-nigger?

        • One Tāne Huna 14.1.1.1
          18 March 2013 at 3:42 pm

          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?

          • Mark 14.1.1.1.1
            18 March 2013 at 3:47 pm

            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?

            • One Tāne Huna 14.1.1.1.1.1
              18 March 2013 at 3:53 pm

              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.

        • bad12 14.1.1.2
          18 March 2013 at 4:41 pm

          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 ]

  16. Mark 16
    18 March 2013 at 3:50 pm

    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..

    • One Tāne Huna 16.1
      18 March 2013 at 3:54 pm

      Ooh, you learned a new word. Polly wanna cracker? 😆

    • Draco T Bastard 16.2
      18 March 2013 at 6:25 pm

      A good read as far as science goes comes from the scientists – not the delusional people denying what the scientists are saying.

      • muzza 16.2.1
        18 March 2013 at 7:18 pm

        Bullshit – Scientists are as corruptable and controllable as any other group on earth B!

        Simple as that!

        • One Tāne Huna 16.2.1.1
          18 March 2013 at 8:45 pm

          *corruptible.

          I figure if it’s going to feature so large in your fantasy life you might as well learn to spell it.

          • muzza 16.2.1.1.1
            18 March 2013 at 9:11 pm

            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!

            • One Tāne Huna 16.2.1.1.1.1
              18 March 2013 at 9:18 pm

              🙄

              Project Onan coming along nicely is it? Do you honestly think I’m going to waste my time arguing with the embodiment of insincerity?

              • muzza …
                19 March 2013 at 8:54 am

                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!

  17. Tom Bennion 17
    18 March 2013 at 3:55 pm

    For those interested in a factual approach, NZ climate scientists talking about their work in this new film: http://thiniceclimate.org/.

  18. vto 18
    18 March 2013 at 4:40 pm

    It would be well worthwhile if the climate changed so that summer was 6 months and each of autumn, winter and spring 2 months.

  19. One Tāne Huna 19
    18 March 2013 at 5:21 pm

    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?

    • dumrse 19.1
      18 March 2013 at 8:39 pm

      Is that just like your Union Organisation that masquerades as a Labour Party ?

    • UpandComer 19.2
      18 March 2013 at 9:55 pm

      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.

      • One Tāne Huna 19.2.1
        18 March 2013 at 9:59 pm

        Hey, dipshit, what the fuck are you blithering about? Nothing I wrote, that’s for sure.

  20. Murray Olsen 20
    18 March 2013 at 7:21 pm

    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.

    • Colonial Viper 20.1
      18 March 2013 at 8:11 pm

      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.

      • Murray Olsen 20.1.1
        18 March 2013 at 8:24 pm

        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.

        • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1
          18 March 2013 at 8:33 pm

          I figure that there ain’t nothing more natural than a lump of anthracite…

          • Murray Olsen 20.1.1.1.1
            18 March 2013 at 9:00 pm

            A lump of anthracite as a natural remedy for climate deniers? Applied appropriately, I can see the advantages.

  21. Cedric Katesby 21
    19 March 2013 at 12:03 am

    [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. ]

  22. grumpy 22
    19 March 2013 at 11:36 am

    …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? ]

    • One Tāne Huna 22.1
      19 March 2013 at 11:48 am

      Which hockey stick?

      This one?

      Or this one?

      Or this one?

      Or this one?

      Get a life, loser.

      • ghostrider888 22.1.1
        19 March 2013 at 12:08 pm

        you are the Bomb Tane

      • grumpy 22.1.2
        19 March 2013 at 12:37 pm

        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

        • ghostrider888 22.1.2.1
          19 March 2013 at 12:41 pm

          pray, do you honestly believe climate change is not afoot

          • Grumpy 22.1.2.1.1
            19 March 2013 at 7:48 pm

            Who cares, it’s become a political bandwagon for the left. As such it has no credibility.

            • Colonial Viper 22.1.2.1.1.1
              19 March 2013 at 7:51 pm

              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.

            • felixviper 22.1.2.1.1.2
              19 March 2013 at 7:52 pm

              lolz

        • One Tāne Huna 22.1.2.2
          19 March 2013 at 12:51 pm

          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.

        • One Tāne Huna 22.1.2.3
          19 March 2013 at 1:21 pm

          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.

          …the Nature paper was clearly based on Chapter 4 from the thesis, and it makes sense to have done so. Of course there were similarities. The question Watts posed was why was that particular change (adding the recent temperature record) made to the paper when it was not the original thesis, and the answer is clearly that it was not necessary given the objective of the original project.

          That’s all that matters here. Watt’s inane query was “I wonder why the difference” and the answer is “because it was irrelevant to the purpose of the original thesis.”

          That’s all.

          “Therefore it is intirely(sic) reasonable to ask about differences between them.”

          No, it’s not. The reasons for the differences are obvious, and the reasons for pursuing it further are obvious as well – to stir up false controversy and to cast doubt upon the motivations and methods of Marcott. That’s all this is, is a Watts/McIntyre denial hatchet-job, and it has no foundation whatsoever.

          My emphasis.

          OK Grumpy you can go back to sleep now.

        • Pascal's bookie 22.1.2.4
          19 March 2013 at 8:25 pm

          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.

        • Cedric Katesby 22.1.2.5
          22 March 2013 at 10:20 pm

          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.

  23. JonL 23
    19 March 2013 at 1:56 pm

    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…….

Links to post