“Science”

51 comments on ““Science” ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Brett Dale 1

   1 September 2009 at 1:44 pm

   Science is responsible for rap music???

   I thought it was young New Zealand rappers who for some reason think they are African Americans because they can put a blue or red scarf around their heads, and scream “Whats up” down Colombo street.

   anyone who has actually visited the USA, will know how far off the beaten track, these rappers are, when it comes to knowledge of gang life in America.
   • roger nome 1.1

     1 September 2009 at 1:56 pm

     You’re opening a can of worms there brett. Be careful – Maori have had over a century of Europeans telling them what cultural practices they should be living.
   • Ari 1.2

     1 September 2009 at 3:47 pm

     While I’m not a huge fan of hip hop, I’d have to say in all fairness to hip hop artists, they don’t seem guilty of the cultural confusion that you seem to want to pin on them, Brett. They’re pretty clearly trying to own their genre in a different way to American rappers- even if they have often inherited the bragging-based culture that seems to pervade most of hiphop. (with a few notable and enjoyable exceptions)
     • felix 1.2.1

       1 September 2009 at 4:36 pm

       …they don’t seem guilty of the cultural confusion that you seem to want to pin on them, Brett.

       Certainly no more so than any of the other musical forms and associated subcultures we’ve “imported” such as hmm, let’s see – rock music, breakbeat, punk, reggae, that godawful psytrance the hippies play, jazz, blues, and even (gasp) Brett’s beloved inbred redneck country & western music.

       Perhaps Brett thinks we should stop doing all of that and limit ourselves strictly to indigenous instruments and forms.
     • Natattak 1.2.2

       1 September 2009 at 6:17 pm

       You seem to be confusing rap and hip-hop. I’d prefer to not see you doing that again.
2. Maynard J 2

   1 September 2009 at 1:48 pm

   A.C.T

   vs.

   S.O.A.D

   Science fails to recognise the single most
   potent element of human existence
   letting the reigns go to the unfolding
   is faith, faith, faith, faith
   Science has failed our world
   science has failed our mother earth

   Hmm – they seem to have a fair bit in common, but their idea of ‘faith’ might vary a bit.
   • roger nome 2.1

     1 September 2009 at 2:00 pm

     nooo Maynard – leave S.O.A.D out of this – i’d prefer them to remain a distant memory of my teenage years thanks.
3. snoozer 3

   1 September 2009 at 1:49 pm

   a “science” ate my baby!
4. Brett Dale 4

   1 September 2009 at 1:50 pm

   Judging by what ACT said in the link that was provided, they are big believers in Personal Responsibility, which I guess would make them an enemy of the left.
   • lprent 4.1

     1 September 2009 at 1:59 pm

     It is a pity that they haven’t taken their personal responsibility seriously enough to learn enough science to understand the issues.

     Hiding with your head stuck in their collective navels like ACT has doesn’t sound like they’re taking responsibility to me. It sounds more like avoiding responsibility.
   • Ari 4.2

     1 September 2009 at 3:48 pm

     I would’ve thought polluters paying for their emissions is the height of personal responsibility, Brett- tell me, why do you think the Act Party opposes such responsible behaviour?
   • Ag 4.3

     1 September 2009 at 5:32 pm

     It makes ACT the enemy of progress. Modern societies depend upon all sorts of insurance schemes, both private and public. Such schemes create moral hazard, but we keep them because everyone ends up better off overall. Given that fundamental fact, it is largely pointless to go on about personal responsibility.

     It’s a silly concept anyway.
5. Red Rosa 5

   1 September 2009 at 1:57 pm

   Fell over laughing at Federated Farmers comments on the ETS.

   Do you know, they advocated a research levy? This would pay for some serious science to study the question. Great idea.

   But I seem to recall they marched on Parliament to stop this proposal, when it was $300 per farm, per year….one bloke even drove his tractor (without cab) up the steps. Same bloke now has a job inside the building, wonder what he is thinking.

   But it’s always a great idea when some one else is paying…..
   • Rob A 5.1

     1 September 2009 at 2:46 pm

     I take it you have never heard of DairyInsight, Dexcel or DairyNZ, wool and meat have similar things but I forget thier names. What the farmers were protesting was the government getting control of something that was already inplace and working well.

     These organistions have been/are putting more money into research for the environment then any other NZ group that I know of
6. So Bored 6

   1 September 2009 at 1:57 pm

   Of course ACT dont like science, it has the disarming charm in that it makes empirical judgements based upon evidence. ACT have plenty of theories, just no evidence that any actually work.
7. Maynard J 7

   1 September 2009 at 1:59 pm

   I have come to conclude that every time someone mentions ‘personal responsibility’ it is newspeak for some ploy for people to shirk their responsibilities, or freeload off those who do not.
8. toad 8

   1 September 2009 at 2:21 pm

   They really have found a niche in fruit loop land, haven’t they.

   Currently, ACT has seen no observational-based evidence of any warming trend in New Zealand that would warrant grounds for concern. NIWA accepts that New Zealand warming might be only two-thirds of any global temperature increase. Plausibly this might be beneficial for New Zealanders for many decades at least.

   FFS.
   • lukas 8.1

     1 September 2009 at 3:17 pm

     Toad, coming from the Green’s that is rather funny especially when you consider what your former co-leader said regarding the conservation estate… care to remind us what that was?

     Something about even mining 100 hectares would be like saying “if you have six kids and you lose one it doesn’t mater”… ring a bell?
     • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1

       1 September 2009 at 4:42 pm

       So is ACTs policy a metaphor then Lukas?

       If so what does it mean?
       • lukas 8.1.1.1

         1 September 2009 at 6:35 pm

         PB, I have not seen any metaphors in ACT policy.

         Do you think the Green’s equate the value of a few trees to that of a human life?
         • felix 8.1.1.1.1

           1 September 2009 at 7:26 pm

           Jeez lukas, that’s the metaphor Pb was referring to – do you need everything spelled out for you?

           It were you who drew a parallel between a literal statement and a metaphor from the greens. Are you really so dim that you could miss that not only as you typed it but even hours later when your error was so very gently pointed out to you by Pb?

           Perhaps it’s past your bedtime anyway lukey pookey.
           • lukas 8.1.1.1.1.1

             1 September 2009 at 8:30 pm

             wrong Felix.

             I was referring to Toad’s comment “have found a niche in fruit loop land”
           • felix 8.1.1.1.1.2

             2 September 2009 at 8:30 am

             Orly?

             God you’re slow. Toad talks about a literal actard statement. You compare it to a green metaphor. Pb points out the error. Wukey gets confused and still is.

             Poor wittle wukey.
           • lukas 8.1.1.1.1.3

             2 September 2009 at 9:17 am

             wrong again Felix, I was simply pointing out the lunacy in Toad’s statement given what Jeanette has said. For the “green” Party to be accusing ACT of finding a niche in fruit loop land is hypocritical
           • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.1.1.4

             2 September 2009 at 9:49 am

             Because the greens used a metaphor?
           • lukas 8.1.1.1.1.5

             2 September 2009 at 10:00 am

             a metaphor comparing mining the conservation estate to losing a child…do you not find that a strange metaphor to use? Do you think Jeanette would retract it if given the chance?
           • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.1.1.6

             2 September 2009 at 10:12 am

             No I don’t find it strange Lukas. But then I don’t take it literally, on account of it being a metaphor.

             I wouldn’t have a clue if she’d take it back. If a bunch of morons started bleating ridiculous shit about “omigod, she sed trees are excatly like teh babeeez”, then she might feel it politically wise to take it back. But that’s politics, and it would reflect more on the morons than her, in my view.
   • Lanthanide 8.2

     1 September 2009 at 4:02 pm

     Oh, so it’s ok if New Zealand, you know, the country bit, warms up a little bit, as long as it isn’t as warm as the rest of the world, and is beneficial to us directly?

     Obviously Act don’t care if all of our major trading partners suddenly can’t afford to buy our exports if they have to spend so much money at home to relocate their people due to rising waterlines, or if their economies go to crap due to droughts and floods…

     It’s very trivial to see those affects in the current environment – NZ itself hasn’t done too badly the last 12 months or so, yet we’re in recession simply because the rest of the world also is in recession…
9. Ianmac 9

   1 September 2009 at 2:28 pm

   I do wonder just what Rodney is playing at given that he has a University background and I think specialised in um Land use of some sort. It is hard to believe that he is honest about denial. So why would he take this direction?
   • Adders 9.1

     1 September 2009 at 2:46 pm

     Why indeed. Surely he entered politics for a change of climate.
10. James Barber 10

    1 September 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Is this really helping?

    This is just going to be put next to the Kiwiblog post of the fake Green party abortion policy.
    • Izzy 10.1

      1 September 2009 at 2:58 pm

      As I recall James it wasn’t the presence of humour that was the issue with the kb abortion post, rather the tastelessness of said humour.
    • snoozer 10.2

      1 September 2009 at 3:02 pm

      James. The opposition to Farrar’s abortion post wasn’t anti all satire. Come on dude, think about it.
    • r0b 10.3

      1 September 2009 at 3:28 pm

      Is what really helping James? Which sentence in the piece is a direct quote from ACTs ETS minority report? Is it satire if ACT said it itself?
    • Ari 10.4

      1 September 2009 at 3:53 pm

      Except this is satirising Act’s actual policy. I’m not a huge fan of political satire, but at least this one approaches the task with some sense of honesty.
11. burt 11

    1 September 2009 at 2:42 pm

    The sky is falling – the sky is falling – pay taxes and vote green now to save the planet.. Don’t worry that Bush did a better job of reducing emissions in the US than Klark did in NZ, she’s the bomb and the UN love her…. Must be great being a self serving lefty, you can forget the facts and claim science is on your side.
    • snoozer 11.1

      1 September 2009 at 3:00 pm

      um. the science is on our side.

      what facts are we forgetting?
    • r0b 11.2

      1 September 2009 at 3:29 pm

      Burt makes the case so much better than I did.
    • Ari 11.3

      1 September 2009 at 3:55 pm

      We all know that Helen Clark only tried marginally harder than John Key to reduce emissions burt, give it up. This isn’t a partisan football and you can’t make it into one.

      Coincidentally, the security word for this one was DUMB. Heh. 🙂
      • felix 11.3.1

        1 September 2009 at 4:40 pm

        When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
        • burt 11.3.1.1

          1 September 2009 at 5:54 pm

          So the science is settled then ?
          • lprent 11.3.1.1.1

            1 September 2009 at 6:06 pm

            It never is – it isn’t in the nature of the beast.

            However for the people who actually know what they’re talking about, the weight of proof is overwhelming that dumping lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is going to change the climate and it isn’t going to be pleasant. Now they’re simply arguing about how bad and how fast the problems will happen and how reversible the change to climate will be..
12. Rob A 12

    1 September 2009 at 2:49 pm

    Its just ACT pandering to thier 3% and hoping to pinch however many deluded Nat voters that still believe this tripe

    ………..move along, nothing to see here
13. Daniel J Miles 13

    1 September 2009 at 2:59 pm

    To be fair, every party in parliament has done their fair share of evidence denial. It’s just that this one is on a more major issue than a lot of others.
14. Tom Semmens 14

    1 September 2009 at 3:03 pm

    @Ianmac

    “…So why would he take this direction?…”

    Try corruption:

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/08/01/meet-alan-gibbs-builder-of-amphibious-humvees-and-climate-science-coalitions/

    If it wasn’t for climate crank Alan Gibb’s money, ACT would be discussed in the past tense now. Alan Gibbs purchased a political party, lock stock and climate change policy.
15. Ianmac 15

    1 September 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Thanks Tom. I just hope that it isn’t so. It would be a disaster for NZ if Gibb’s money is able to buy.
    • The Voice of Reason 15.1

      1 September 2009 at 3:20 pm

      Well, it wasn’t just Gibbs’ money, lanmac. The SST bought a minority share, too, don’t forget.
16. jcuknz 16

    1 September 2009 at 7:49 pm

    A delightful bit of nonsense by Guest writer … wonderful 🙂
17. RT 17

    1 September 2009 at 9:46 pm

    A bit of news to ensure the Nats and Act take the ETS seriously.
    Air NZ under pressure from EU to reduce emissions.
    Air New Zealand is among thousands of operators which must join the European Union’s emission trading scheme by 2012 or face penalties flying there.
    This makes the Act party arguments irrelevant and a wakeup call for Johnny boy. Should the EU extend this to trade we could be in deep shite, but then I think Johnny boy knows that.
18. outofbed 18

    1 September 2009 at 10:53 pm

    How can you take National seriously
    They are building more Roads
    Energy saving lighting ?
    Coal fired power stations anyone ?
    Mining Lignite anyone interested?
    And a watered down ETS?
    WTF
19. Galeandra 19

    2 September 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Rob A argues about the farming community: These organistions have been/are putting more money into research for the environment then any other NZ group that I know of

    Reply Well, Rob A, it’s a pity that the rivers I fly-fish in Taranaki don’t show more benefit from the research. They are congested with algae all summer, turbid and soupy whenever the rains depart. And the maize monoculture that has sprung up over recent years makes things worse.

    There has been a lot of riparian fencing and planting, heavily subsidised by the Regional Council, but even then in a lot of places you find ‘gates’ let into the electric fencing to let the cows graze the banks when feed gets short in late summer.

    The ‘responsibility’ of the farming community is largely imposed by Fonterra, and there are many flagrant breaches.

    I was disgusted with the ‘fart tax’ rebellion then, for it’s calculated disinformation and personal attacks, as much as I am disgusted now when I hear Fed Farm spokesmen defending indefensible single bottom line economics and adding to the climate of climate denialism.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS