Roundtable shirks science, embraces aristocrat

21 comments on “Roundtable shirks science, embraces aristocrat ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sam Dixon 1

   15 November 2007 at 4:35 pm

   If I headed a major business I would be pissed off with the roundtable.

   Climate change is a huge risk for businesses and here’s the business roundtable still deluding themsevles rather than acting positively in their members’ interests by promoting policies to substantial reduce emissions.
2. Robert owen 2

   15 November 2007 at 4:37 pm

   AHHHh Nigel Lawson
   I thought he was dead He was one of the reasons I came here twenty odd years ago
3. the sprout 3

   15 November 2007 at 5:10 pm

   well he’ll make an excellent guest of the National Party, expose them to all sorts of ridicule.
   i wonder which genius decided to invite him?
4. Spam 4

   15 November 2007 at 5:20 pm

   Well, I’m not surprised. You socialists only ever want to hear one side of an argument.
5. Daveo 5

   15 November 2007 at 5:33 pm

   You’re right Spam – when are we going to start teaching creationism in schools? Or the teachings of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? (www.venganza.org)

   And while we’re speaking of hearing both sides of the argument, you won’t believe this. I was at an astronomy conference recently and they refused to invite my mate who thinks the moon’s made out of blue cheese. Bloody socialists – only ever want to hear one side of an argument.
6. Robinsod 6

   15 November 2007 at 5:44 pm

   Tell me about it Daveo – I went to the same conference and they wouldn’t table my astrology paper! One-eyed bastards!
7. the sprout 7

   15 November 2007 at 6:07 pm

   devil worshippers probably. burn their evil books
8. gobsmacked 8

   15 November 2007 at 6:39 pm

   Blimey, so John Key’s an “eco-fundamentalist”, putting a spanner in the works of capitalism? Remember Al Gore’s visit to NZ last year? A fan speaks …

   ***

   Mr Key said he went to Mr Gore’s presentation because of his assertion that there would be significant economic ramifications if climate change was ignored.
   “There’s no doubt climate change is going [to] become a much more political issue – the public can see the evidence around them,” Mr Key told NZPA.
   “I don’t think environmental issues and climate change is left-wing, I think it very much should be on the right-wing agenda.” (NZPA)

   “I firmly believe in climate change, I always have.” – Radio New Zealand, Nine to Noon, 28 Nov 2006

   Of course, he’s also said the opposite, depending on the day of the week, but hey, that’s just John being nice and not wanting anyone to feel left out.
9. Spam 9

   15 November 2007 at 6:50 pm

   I was at an astronomy conference recently and they refused to invite my mate who thinks the moon’s made out of blue cheese.

   I went to the same conference and they wouldn’t table my astrology paper!

   Were either of those peer-reviewed, published papers?

   What are you guys so afraid of in the global warming debate that moves you to label anyone who doesn’t sign-up to the mantra as ‘deniers’?
10. Robinsod 10

    15 November 2007 at 6:52 pm

    Were either of those peer-reviewed, published papers?

    Mine was.
11. Spam 11

    15 November 2007 at 6:56 pm

    Then you should have no problem getting it published / presented at an astrology conference. Its really not their fault that you didn’t know the difference between astrology & astronomy.
12. Robinsod 12

    15 November 2007 at 6:58 pm

    Spam – that was a joke (kinda like climate change denial).
13. the sprout 13

    15 November 2007 at 7:01 pm

    i think spma may be a graduate of the John Key Academy of Humourlessness
    
14. Nih 14

    15 November 2007 at 7:04 pm

    THAT’S NOT FUNNY SPROUT.
15. Santa Claws 15

    15 November 2007 at 7:28 pm

    Tane, it is easy to see that you are a unionist and future politician, and not a scientist (or at least one that is not sucking up climate change funding like a leech)

    Frankly, I’m somewhat amazed that a union would be uncritically supporting changes which are sure to cost its members in many ways, leading to a lower quality of life overall, and transferring bulk dollars into dodgy carbon trading schemes.
16. Robinsod 16

    15 November 2007 at 7:35 pm

    But DPF claws if we don’t stop climate change your home will melt away and then where would you post your silly attempts at cyberbullying and wedge politics from? come to think of it…
17. toms 17

    15 November 2007 at 9:51 pm

    His daughter still a reasonable bit of totty though.
18. AncientGeek 18

    16 November 2007 at 8:35 am

    I did a science degree in earth sciences. It was clear when I did that degree in the late 70’s that climate change was probably going to affect the climate due to the greenhouse effects. It is a simple matter of basic physics. That hasn’t been in question for a long time. At that time it wasn’t possible to do any estimates because there wasn’t solid data.

    What was in question at that time was how much the climate would buffer the effects. In other words when it would occur, and how fast it would proceed. Since then the prudent scientific estimates (ie how sure are we) as expressed by the IPCC have only moved in one direction as the evidence has been found. It is going to be sooner and faster than previously expected.

    My current working estimate is that we’re likely to see some major effects within my remaining lifetime. I think it is prudent for all organizations to start planning on how it affects their operations and members.

    The business roundtable has had the same problem for 30 years – focus on the near term, and how to offload debt on to the following generations.
19. r0b 19

    16 November 2007 at 8:59 am

    Welcome AncientGeek. You and I have a similar background. And thanks for your clear and compelling contribution. I agree, planning for a very different future should begin now. I sometimes wonder if those numbers of people heading off to Australia every month have ever pondered the likely future of the West Island.
20. PhilBest 20

    16 November 2007 at 6:53 pm

    Is Al Gore scientifically qualified? Is Vincent Gray not? How come the scientific debate needs such rigorous censoring from (typically lefty) bureaucracy and media? How come Vincent Gray can’t even get a letter to the editor published in NZ? He’s one of the “2500 expert reviewers” after all. Or is it a dirty secret that the 2500 expert reviewers are far from unanimous about the science, even today?

    I know, I know, you’ll quote statistics at me that suit YOUR point of view. I haven’t got time to quote all the opposing ones. But there is one ell of a suspicious smell surrounding any issue that has to be CENSORED as heavily as this one has to be.

    Fortunately, thanks to the Net, anyone in NZ with half a brain can find out the truth for themselves. ( Its only media overseas that actually prints Vincent Gray’s opinions). And don’t give me that “Vincent Gray is only one lonely contrarian” rot. There’s HUNDREDS at LEAST of scientifically qualified people like him who are concerned at the political manipulation of their science. My favourite site: Senator James Inhofe. Look it up, EVERYBODY.

Links to post

1. Lawson not bonkers at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 31 December 2007 at 10:19 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS