We need to push back on Leighton Smith

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, September 8th, 2018 - 85 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming, jacinda ardern, labour, making shit up, Politics, science, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

So yesterday politics in Aotearoa New Zealand spun around the resignation of a Minister who clearly was not coping and worked itself into a lather over a discrete number of words used by the Prime Minister in answering, truthfully, a direct question and clearly wanting to preserve to the MP the dignity of announcing her resignation.

Big issue huh?

There are other issues that the country is facing. Like the inevitable destruction of the planet’s environment unless we change our ways. Quickly. Clearly for the right the fascination with the interpretation of a few words is more important than the destruction of the world’s environment.

The problem is that climate change is at the centre of the culture war that is currently raging. The rampant free marketeers and their acolytes do not accept the Greenies and the lefties and the environmentalists are right and that things are looking really bad. Despite all the evidence.

Which is why this particular article by Leighton Smith is so annoying. It mixes up equal amounts of ignorance and belligerence. We don’t need to still be debating this issue. We need to discuss how to prevent the worst and how to adapt.

Leighton said this:

It is not a matter of if the climate is changing, it is a matter of what is causing it.

Is it natural? Is it within normal variability? Every indication tells us it is.

So what is causing it? Is it you or is it the cows? No, it’s not.

There is no evidence, only guess work and modelling, there is just no proof and they are far from it.

“Leighton every time I hear fake news on climate change I feel like screaming.”

Ian says how the hell do we let minority groups like the Greens have so much influence?

How can an average citizen like me push back on all this BS?

I live for the day we live can yell at the ‘man made’ climate change types I TOLD YOU SO!

All those right wing memes mixed up in so few words. It is quite impressive.

And I don’t live for the say when I can yell I TOLD YOU SO to all the idiots like Leighton.  It will mean that we were right and they were wrong.  And this is not a pissing contest.  It is trying to understand what is happening to our precious fragile world.  And trying to preserve it.

And claiming there is no evidence? Only if you have shut your eyes during the past thirty years and shouted out “Nah nah nah” continuously.

Leighton is perhaps an average citizen.  With an above average mouth and a below average brain.

85 comments on “We need to push back on Leighton Smith ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Booker 1
    8 September 2018 at 8:27 am

    Seriously can’t believe this is getting published in 2018. Seems Newstalk ZB have never heard of broadcasting standards.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      8 September 2018 at 11:45 am

      Yep. This is where lies that are published (What Leighton said can be nothing less at this point in time) need to be severely punished. Leighton fired and prevented from being a journalist and ZB fined about $5 million.

      This is too damned important an issue to continue being nice about it.

    • Sacha 1.2
      8 September 2018 at 11:50 am

      People need to remind them that lying has consequences. Roll on the official complaints to them, then the BSA if they don’t pull their heads in.

      • dukeofurl 1.2.1
        8 September 2018 at 11:58 am

        Doesnt work. They would claim its ‘an opinion’ which is allowed under the rules. The only approach is to require balance from his clearly slanted opinions, but thats difficult to get as it once was seen as giving other side at the same time. Thats no longer the case and they will say theres someone else on the weekend who gives the other side.

        hes just a toupeed shock jock with an manufactured ‘deep voice’ ( done by speech therapy) from Sydney. They tried him on TV but hes so far right and with no
        personal warmth that he was a disaster.
        hes totally ignored by the general media with only his mate whaleoil who gives him some oxygen.

        This is his last year and next year will be replaced by Kerry McIvor

        “Before starting at 1ZB, Smith worked briefly as a taxi driver in Sydney, Australia. His first job in radio was at age 15 in 1962 when he got a half hour show as a “junior disk jockey”, also in Sydney, according to NZME.”
        https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/99506922/newstalk-zb-host-leighton-smith-announces-resignation

        best ignore him as its as-though Muldoon lasted all these years.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1
          8 September 2018 at 1:02 pm

          The only approach is to require balance from his clearly slanted opinions, but thats difficult to get as it once was seen as giving other side at the same time.

          Make it so that such balance must match the scientific consensus. For each denier opinion they’d need something like 10,000 in favour.

          See where they go with that.

          • dukeofurl 1.2.1.1.1
            8 September 2018 at 3:34 pm

            Trouble is the BSA is complete joke. Its a veneer of standards where they hardly ever find against the broadcasters

            I did a search of BSA decisions regarding Leighton Smith and this one came up
            https://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/3589-nelson-and-the-radio-network-ltd-trn-2003-120?search_terms=Leighton+Smith&exact=true

            It was some US evanglist nutter , who naturally came up the most absurd things and so a Catholic complained.
            It would seem reasonable to uphold the complaint, but BSA couldnt even get their facts right

            But the gist is this
            ” The Authority observes that to find a breach of broadcasting standards on this occasion would be to interpret the Broadcasting Act 1989 in such a way as to limit freedom of expression in a manner which is not reasonable or demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society (s.5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). As required by s.6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Authority adopts an interpretation of the relevant standards which it considers is consistent with and gives full weight to the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act’

            What they mean is they can say what they like, and to hell with the specific standards required to be observed in a broadcast.

            Regarding facts -“The Authority’s enquiries disclose that Baghdad and the whole of the Mesopotamian area were once part of the Byzantine Empire and, therefore, declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.’

            They have confused Roman Mesopotamia ie Modern Iraq with Byzantine Mesopotamia, which despite the same name was entirely within modern Turkey. After 600 AD or so it was under Persian and then Muslim control

            A lot of the other standards discussed in this decision could equally apply to Climate Change.

            I would guess the BSA relies on a tape provided from the show ( his producer is is Wife) and it seems time after time there are comments made later in the show which cover their arse.
            Whether these comments are later made I dont know , but you have to wonder.

            First rule have your recording and dont rely on judgement made on the recording made by the station. !!

            • dukeofurl 1.2.1.1.1.1
              8 September 2018 at 3:50 pm

              To add to that – the reason why I thought you have to have your recording is that its very strange that one of the comments made in the show and mentioned by the BSA as an ‘out’ was from the Producer ( his wife). Was that comment in the original broadcast ?

        • sumsuch 1.2.1.2
          9 September 2018 at 12:49 am

          Talk Radio is tickling people’s prejudices — so, naturally for the powerful. Though I remember a better time — once dick-wit Mike Hoskings left in the 90s. Investigative journalism pointed in ridiculous Leighton’s direction would tear him to dust.

    • Morag 1.3
      11 September 2018 at 2:50 pm

      Leighton is factually right. Swallow this,

  2. Ed 2
    8 September 2018 at 8:29 am

    Leighton Smith is scum, pure and simple.
    This article explains how we could have saved ourselves before the industry funded deniers delayed the necessity actions.
    That was in the late 70s and early 80s.
    It is 2018 , we know the consequences will be bad and scum like Smith still get given access to a pulpit.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

  3. greywarshark 3
    8 September 2018 at 10:08 am

    Some people listen to LS as if it was a dose of daily medicine for long life.

    I like your words micky equal amounts of ignorance and belligerence.

  4. R.P Mcmurphy 4
    8 September 2018 at 11:16 am

    get it right. smith is a paid operative for the owners of the media. he is a brainless idiot interested only in himself and his emoluments. he has a voice that ordinary people mistake for integrity and he trades on this to promote his views that are the embodiment of greed and acquisitiveness

  5. dukeofurl 5
    8 September 2018 at 12:01 pm

    The voice is manufactured . They have speech therapy to go looooow. It used to be quite common for those males in radio, not so much now.

  6. Jum 6
    8 September 2018 at 1:43 pm

    Whatever, Leighton. Whomsoever wins this argument, the cockroaches will be happy – and I’m talking about you, Leighton. No matter what damage is done to our environment and by association our children, because of the greed and machismo nonsense of Leighton and co, the cockroaches of the world like Leighton will continue on. That’s why he’s a denier. Pondscum always looks after its own.

  7. Ad 7
    8 September 2018 at 3:51 pm

    The government makes it easy for Leighton et al because this is yet another policy area this government are deliberately taking their sweet time on.

    You can’t push back until you have something solid to push back with. That is the responsibility of James Shaw.

    For the last year Minister Shaw has been on a very low-key charm offensive with the big end of town, and still there’s nothing solid to consult on, let alone engage the skeptical media with. Sure, plenty of reports from the Productivity Commission and the Environment Commissioner. Only the beltway reads them.

    Granted there aren’t that many Green voters who tune in to Leighton Smith – or read Trevett or Hosking or Hooten or Hawkesby – but until there is some draft legislation or actual hard solid policy to argue about, this part of the government is leaving the field open to the media to play about in at will.

    We could sure do with an actual policy from the Greens to distract us from the failure of Labour’s idiots at the lower end of Cabinet.

    • dukeofurl 7.1
      8 September 2018 at 5:57 pm

      Greens are only Confidence and Supply to Coalition. They arent in the Government/Cabinet at all.

    • Jum 7.2
      8 September 2018 at 8:26 pm

      ‘Granted there aren’t that many Green voters who tune in to Leighton Smith – or read Trevett or Hosking or Hooten or Hawkesby’
      the issue is always, ‘in order to understand evil, first you must read it’ then you can recognise it and fight it.

    • KJT 7.3
      15 September 2018 at 8:43 am

      Unfortunately you can only change things as fast as people will accept.

      It is against Green Kaupapa to ignore democracy and consensus, and do a 1984 Labour type TINA dictatorship.

      Greens do have policy on climate change. Stopping future oil permits is but one success. Note the stupidity and self interested blow back from that. A policy which should be non contentious. Continued fossil fuel use is incompatible with human survival.

      Labour is still not prepared to do anything concrete about AGW. You should be blaming them, not Greens.

      As for the required, fair, steady state economy. Good luck with that. The finance industry, trade treaties and our rulers, big corporates, will never allow it.

      Persuasion is the only method the Greens have.

      Don’t worry, Something will be done when Manhattan is flooded.

      • Macro 7.3.1
        15 September 2018 at 9:00 am

        +1
        What you say is the reality of our situation.

        I’m thinking it won’t be long before Manhattan is flooded – which of course will be too late. The window has just about slammed shut – if it hasn’t already. The coming generations are going to face a much less benign world.

      • Ad 7.3.2
        15 September 2018 at 9:01 am

        Who is the Minister of Climate Change?

        • KJT 7.3.2.1
          15 September 2018 at 9:07 am

          Don’t let your obsession with bagging the Greens, blind you to what James is doing.

          • Ad 7.3.2.1.1
            15 September 2018 at 9:39 am

            Well then he should be able to demonstrate that he’s done something.
            – Any draft legislation?
            – Any draft regulation?
            – Any climate change plan?
            – Any confirmed plan on gases?

            Anything, other than talking, at all?

      • solkta 7.3.3
        15 September 2018 at 9:14 am

        and even if the Greens did want to go at it all authoritarian that would not be the best strategy for a sustained effort going forward. Shaw is doing a great job at getting buy in from a lot of different people with differing interests. To approach it otherwise would likely see policy reversed and/or the program retarded when next the government changes.

        • KJT 7.3.3.1
          15 September 2018 at 9:38 am

          Exactly. We need the more intelligent Nat’s and business people on side, for changes to stick

          Yes. Moving in business circles James is getting buy in, from some very unlikely quarters.

  8. Jenny 8
    8 September 2018 at 6:13 pm

    Smith is a dangerous crank. Luckilly for us, there are other, more moderate media commentators.

    “What’s the truth?”
    Duncan Garner – Newshub, April 5, 2018

    Duncan Garner talks about climate change with Sefton Darby a Sydney based consultant and author of the book, ‘The Ground Between’

    DG: Is the world coming to an end?
    Is climate change this real thing?
    And if we don’t make real change, and we don’t change our world and our lives, it’s all over?

    SD: …. it is an important thing. And you had a really good guest yesterday from Westpac, [Dominic Stevens]. Who said, we pay the small bill now, or we pay a much, much, bigger bill later.
    And so, there is no running away from this. It is an urgent issue.

    DG: Because, New Zealand’s carbon emissions, in terms of the world – am I right, are 0.02?
    Or, is that incorrect?

    SD: Yeah but… But it is actually something that frustrates me a bit – we are, compared to the rest of the world, a pretty rich, pretty developed country with lots of energy options, and if we don’t make changes, then actually we can’t expect anyone else.

    (When a Sydney based consultant says that we must take action, before we can expect anyone else to, then you know that the time of John Key’s ‘Fast Follower Doctrine’ is well and truly over. And you also know, that it is time for our government to take the sort of radical leading action that Duncan Garner posited we must, with his quizzical opening statement:

    “Is the world coming to an end?
    Is climate change this real thing?

    And if we don’t make real change,
    and we don’t change our world,
    and our lives, it’s all over?”

    • Ed 8.1
      8 September 2018 at 6:15 pm

      Garner and his sidekick Richardson are part of the problem.
      There will be no follow up.
      If he targeted the roading industry, the fossil fuel industry and the animal agriculture industry Day in, Day put, we would know he meant business.

    • KJT 8.2
      15 September 2018 at 9:05 am

      You will find Garner, Richardson and the like will rubbish anything concrete being done about AGW,

  9. One Two 9
    8 September 2018 at 6:23 pm

    No need to push back…

    Smith is a sympton, not the cause…

    A distraction…

  10. Glenn 10
    8 September 2018 at 6:41 pm

    Smith did me a favour 15 years ago. He pissed me off so much that I stopped listening to radio. Once when there were minor disasters in the provinces local radio would follow the events all day. Now it’s just networks who don’t give a stuff about anything outside the 4 biggest cities and their right wing agenda.

    • Ed 10.1
      8 September 2018 at 6:55 pm

      And persuading people to buy things they don`t need, with money they don`t have, in order to impress others who don`t care.

  11. NZJester 11
    8 September 2018 at 8:31 pm

    Leighton is perhaps an average citizen. With an above average mouth and a below average brain.

    If he can deny the evidence of man-made climate change that has been pointed out, again and again, I can deny the evidence he has a brain, even if it is a below average one.

    Can any of you point me to the evidence he has a brain?
    My evidence against him not having a brain is as sound as his evidence against climate change. So case closed!

  12. corodale 12
    8 September 2018 at 8:39 pm

    Shameless commercial radio, LS is pooh, and all that, sure.

    But there are many issues here which you folk seem unable to engage on. I still see many problems with the way CC is being sold.

    My back-gound is scientific, ecological and green. And I live by that sword; developing progressive, productive, low input, low emission agriculture with regional supply chains, and positive externalities.

    But starting at the basics; we do all understand that atmospheric H20 is far more significant as a GHG, than atmospheric C02. Correct, or?

    When I studied this a few years ago, the actual wording used in the science used by the UN wasn’t that strong. Weather effects of GHGs seem to be significant, but just one of many factors.

    Sorry team, sorry to bust up the consensus, but if “science” has radically changed their conclusions in the last few years, then that raises the next question.

    And as for the solutions, well that has got to happen both globally and internally, in the direction of peace. So if you folk want to pick fights over opinion on CC, then you will find yourselves joining the problem.

    However the correlation between the industrial/financial/military drivers and GHG emissions is strong enough, that I am peacefully on your side, regardless of the detail on the drivers behind CC.

  13. corodale 13
    9 September 2018 at 12:02 am

    Seeing as its such a popular radio show, the Greens should make more effort to understand these perspectives.

    Isn’t it the Greens that need CC more than anyone, for their marketing? Why don’t we prove that statement wrong, with a political strategy that is positive, principled and pragmatic? Why not promote ecological wisdom, and a steady state economy? Perhaps because SSE isn’t in the policy, and the average Green Party Memeber doesn’t know what ecological wisdom is? Don’t trust in market research conducted according to the principles of corporate capitalism, learn to apply the principles of ecological wisdom to market research.

    The Charter compliance of Green Economic (and Monetary) Policy is fully dependent on the adoption of new technology. Problem is, the capital-market owns all the patents and they are withholding the finance. The owners of the world are content with their power and profit from business-as-usual.

    One part of a strategic solution may be public debate on steady-state-economics and finance witch includes the Social Credit party and some Ecologists. Let SC take the political fall-out. But, is there anyone on the Green Party’s Candidate List capable of holding a debate on economics and finance?

    • KJT 13.1
      15 September 2018 at 8:21 am

      James Shaw for one.

      And several others. Marama, for one, is more than capable of discussion on diverse subjects.

      Much greater depth of talent in the Green line up than any other party.

      The advantage of selecting candidates democratically, instead of a shoulder tap from the old boy network.

  14. JessNZ 14
    9 September 2018 at 9:08 am

    PLEASE don’t even hint at blaming the Greens for the failure of the public and the government to care about environmental issues.

    That makes me almost physically ill to read, considering how the Greens and other activists have been the abused Cassandra for the environment for decades. If somebody actually has a way to get people to hear what they just don’t want to, get out there and do it.

  15. Philj 15
    9 September 2018 at 9:17 am

    Talking about trash media. Am I alone in thinking that RNZ is slipping into the same rubbish bin as TVNZ.’Quality’, especially in Morning Report, and so called ‘News’, which is more bleeding and leading than ever is becomming hype, or trivia, or slanted, with CNN material being used as a source! I hope I am wrong. Comments welcome.

  16. coge 16
    9 September 2018 at 5:10 pm

    The big issue, is the vast majority of climate change papers are based upon the practice of post normal science. Throw in a few arts papers as well and you have an academic environment absolutely ripe for skepticism. Attempts to shut down debate makes it all the more suspect.

    • lprent 16.1
      9 September 2018 at 5:27 pm

      Essentially your entire statement is complete mindless and meaningless crap.

      Admittedly most climate change, earth sciences, and probably almost all science papers are not written for the kind of science illiterate moron that you appear to be. However blaming others for your own laziness clearly isn’t appropriate. I have no problems reading and understanding them, and my formal science education pretty much lapsed 4 decades ago.

      The issue isn’t about shutting down debate. It is simply that you are too stupid to understand the explanations, so there is no real point in others persisting with someone whose only talent appears to be self-stroking their dick.

      I trust that you will respect this honest and clear opinion 🙂 If I have time, I will be absolutely happy to continue discussing why you can’t understand some pretty basic science. Of course we need not concern ourselves with the damage to your ego.

      • the other pat 16.1.1
        11 September 2018 at 7:56 am

        whereas i am a climate change believer….personal attacks like you just produced do not serve any interest…..communication and education are the key…..one does not sway hearts and minds with vitriol…..yoy are a moderator…..ban your self for 2 weeks………wait for it………..

        • lprent 16.1.1.1
          13 September 2018 at 12:36 pm

          So? The simpleton made an simple assertion of fact about science and further academia. Furthermore they offered nothing substantive about why they believed what they said – which means that there is nothing to debate.

          What was also clear from his statement was that he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. Consequently I viewed it as a personal attack on anyone who has made the effort to understand.

          So I responded in EXACTLY the same manner from my viewpoint as a person who does understand science. This is part of the general principle of human reciprocity.

          Whining about being treated badly when it is the same way a person treats others is just stupid. If you find something to be offensive when it is done to yourself, then don’t do it to others.

          Just like your stupid statement about climate change believers. Anyone who knows the field about climate change doesn’t believe in it, they just haven’t found anything provable and verifiable that indicates that it isn’t happening, and there is a lot of verifiable evidence that it is.

          Believing is something that I tend to leave to morons who like playing with their brain chemistry with repetitive prayer and other religious expressions. Another example of reciprocity for you to ponder (assuming that you can think of course). I tend to deal in probabilities.

          • the other pat 16.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2018 at 4:10 pm

            i see….so your answer is…”.if you don’t think like i do you are a moron and are just wasting o2 and should just fuck off somewhere and die”…..so typical of the extremes at both ends really quite trumpesque …don’t like hearing it so belittle and put down……oh yawn…… sticks and stones BRO. You keep dealing in your probabilities…..you know….those things we IMAGINE might happen…..its bloody good that most people can move past that um whats it called…oh yeah VITRIOL.

        • greywarshark 16.1.1.2
          13 September 2018 at 1:01 pm

          the other pat
          ‘One does not sway hearts and minds with vitriol.’ What a strange attitude. The matter isn’t something that is being sold to people, it is being told to people. People who should be responsible enough to listen and learn, not have to be persuaded by those respecting their rights as responsible citizens.

          Scientists who know a lot about climate change want to pass this information on to others so that we can learn, and look for confirmation, and then start taking action to assist in remediation, at the same time as taking safety measures against the unstoppable effects already occurring.

          While you sit and contemplate and play the superior, didactic role. Take out your ruler and slap us across the knuckles for talking about likely harm, lack of responsibility by leaders of the nation and communities, not enough prophylactic measures, still enabling citizens to utilise threatened areas, and exposing ratepayers and the public to lawsuits for loss after having allowed people to buy and utilise front-line areas.

        • KJT 16.1.1.3
          15 September 2018 at 8:23 am

          What do you do with people who are too stupid to educate themselves?

    • Draco T Bastard 16.2
      9 September 2018 at 5:54 pm

      We’d love debate. We’re certainly not trying to shut it down.

      It just needs to be debate based around actual science and not the delusional BS and outright lies of the deniers.

      • the other pat 16.2.1
        17 September 2018 at 4:24 pm

        i agree…..so how do you get them on board when their “ignorance” is attacked….that is the point i am making…..good debate involves all sides of each spectrum…listened to with respect and any “corrections” needed given with respect.
        i know its frustrating but punching someone in the mouth don’t get them to see the truth.

        • Draco T Bastard 16.2.1.1
          17 September 2018 at 6:41 pm

          We don’t attack their ignorance – we try to cure it. Unfortunately, many are to fixated upon their beliefs to be able to accept the facts.

  17. e-clectic 17
    10 September 2018 at 12:57 pm

    Climate scientists: It’s man-made greenhouse gases.
    Deniers: It’s the sun, PDO, CO2 follows temperature rise, effect reduces with concentration yadda yadda – in short, no coherent position other than “Anything but carbon”.

    • Mack 17.1
      10 September 2018 at 11:10 pm

      “Deniers: It’s the sun,…..etc ”
      Actually should be…”It’s the sun, stupid” , e-clectic.
      https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2018/06/national-geographic-ignores-the-need-for-evidence/#comment-1552264

      • e-clectic 17.1.1
        12 September 2018 at 3:09 pm

        Seriously?
        If I put the word “Fact” after every statement that makes it so?
        Are you saying that observed warming since 1800 is the result of increased heat from the sun?

      • Frank Macskasy 17.1.2
        2 October 2018 at 10:36 pm

        Mack, if you want evidence, try NASA, NOAA, NIWA, plus a whole bunch of other science institutions.

        If you want reinforcement for your faith-based belief system on this issue – just keep doing what you’re doing.

        • Mack 17.1.2.1
          3 October 2018 at 12:33 am

          “…… your faith-based belief system….”
          Aaahahahahahaha …nah, you’re the one with the “belief system”, Frankieboy. You’re the one who is the looney true believer. You’re the wacko who actually believes we’re warming this Earth. You’re the gullible scmuck whose been taken in,.. believing in an old, outdated, unreal, crackpot “greenhouse” hypothesis.

          This piece of “science” belongs to you.

  18. Mack 18
    12 September 2018 at 7:26 pm

    “……observed warming….”
    How do you “observe” warming, e-clectic ? Oh yes, you rely on graphs produced by “climate scientists”. You rely on a supposition that these scientists are completely honest, with no financial vested interest in fitting the data for these graphs to some AGWARMING, mass groupthink dogma, instilled into them at primary school.
    That the scientists have a sense of individual scientific enquiry, not some grant seeking trougher…another brick in the wall, or govt. grovelling yes-man. Fat chance

    Any warming since 1800 is a result of us naturally coming out of the little ice- age…when they could ice-skate on the Thames in winter. The much more recent warming of about 0.2 deg. , as I see on Dr Roy Spencer’s UAH satellite graph, is readily explained by the surge in SUN spot numbers at the end of last century…..
    https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
    So it actually is the sun, stupid…FACT.

    • Richard Christie 18.1
      13 September 2018 at 12:04 am

      You really have to laugh when climate science deniers try to bolster their bullshit by invoking NASA.

      NASA have done the hard work in the field. The guys who can lower a car suspended from a flying crane onto the surface of Mars are quite unequivocal when it comes to the reality of man made climate change.

      It’s all there in plain English, even Mack should be able to understand it, even if he won’t like it.

      https://climate.nasa.gov

    • KJT 18.2
      15 September 2018 at 8:29 am

      Adding the word fact to the end, does not make bullshit true.

      I could pick holes in all your references, Mack, but they are so scientifically contradictory and laughable, like most denier, crap, so, why bother.

    • Frank Macskasy 18.3
      2 October 2018 at 10:41 pm

      Mack, you’re invoking NASA? Excellent.

      This is what they have to say on the subject:

      The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

      Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

      The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

      ref: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

      Or are you saying that NASA and it’s vast array of orbitting satellites are wrong and deniers like you are correct?!

      Do you use GPS?

  19. Mack 19
    13 September 2018 at 1:56 am

    Yeah, the NASA you’re thinking of is not the NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).. which is a tight little band of “climate scientists” studying nothing but their “climate change” in one little insignificant building in downtown New York.
    This little cabal of AGW brainwashed true believers was under the control of the nutty fraudster, James Hansen, the “grandfather” of “climate change”, on his $180 K salary….since booted out , and replaced by a pommie mathematician, Gavin Smith.
    The NASA you’re thinking of is the one that put us on the moon….whose astronauts and many realistic co-workers all consider the “greenhouse” hypothesis to be a load of horse-shit…and have signed petitions to that effect.
    The link you’ve put up is just your standard online public face of all the govt institutions which peddle the “climate change” crap. eg NIWA, NOAA, Grantham Institute, all the “Climate Change” Research Units.. etc , but all these institutions subscribe to Trenberth’s looney Earth Energy Budget Diagrams, so have effed up bigtime.
    You call me a “climate science denier”, Richieboy, yeah, it’s on my list…..
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2018/04/green-utopia/#comment-1549324
    Here’s some science for you, Dick, It’s all there in plain English, even you should be able to understand it, even if you won’t like it.
    https://jennifermarohasy.com/author/nasif-s-nahle/
    (read chronologically)
    On second thoughts….you’re probably just another gullible, believing simpleton, so better start with the comments here….
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2018/01/climate-change-just-got-personal.html

    • e-clectic 19.1
      13 September 2018 at 3:00 pm

      Love that Nahle link – that’s fabulous, a new one on me – CO2 in combo with O2 is actually cooling.
      I’m pissing myself. Fact.

      • Mack 19.1.1
        13 September 2018 at 9:20 pm

        It’s CO2 in combo with WATER , dumbkolpf …… WATER…you know, H2O.
        CO2 having a lower emissivity than WATER VAPOUR, thus lowering the total emissivity of the atmospheric gases..ie. a COOLING effect.

        You’re pissing yourself alright, you’re a true believing, brainless bedwetter. You’ve gone through quite a few mattress’s, eh, e-clectic. ?

        • RedLogix 19.1.1.1
          15 September 2018 at 2:50 am

          umm … it took me a bit of digging, but Nahle is simply wrong. He uses an emissivity value that completely ignores the optical depth of CO2 in the atmosphere. Essentially by eliminating almost all the CO2 from his emissivity value, he quite naturally came up with an answer that appears to prove CO2 has no warming effect.

          Which is why his paper was pretty much ignored by anyone with actual expertise in the field. Also your pointless abuse disqualifies you from any serious consideration.

          • Mack 19.1.1.1.1
            15 September 2018 at 12:54 pm

            Pretty much straw-clutching crap from you, RedLogix. The emissivity of CO2 has been thrashed to pieces in this argument here…it’s near enough to zero but is calculated to be 0.0017…. even the main alarmist protagonist in this argument (Neutrino) calculates and agrees with this number.

            https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
            This is the part where Neutrino actually finds a slight error in the calculations of Nahle, and hence the crossings out of some of the calculation in the presentation.

            https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/04/determining-the-total-emissivity-of-a-mixture-of-gases-containing-overlapping-absorption-bands/
            Get yourself enlightened, you ignorant loon.

            • RedLogix 19.1.1.1.1.1
              15 September 2018 at 1:42 pm

              I’ve reviewed these links already. I’m not a physical chemist, but I have spent over 7 years of my life working in an industrial setting where among many other things I had to precisely calibrate sensitive IR measuring sensors. And more recently calibrating IR and UV gas measurement equipment on power plant flue gases, so I do have a solid grasp of the fundamentals. (Engineering is a rather brutal discipline, either it works or it doesn’t; ideology simply doesn’t enter into it.)

              I doubt very much you can point to any hands-on, real-world experience in any relevant or comparable tech setting; all you’re doing here is regurgitating other people’s material without the experience to evaluate it. People, who in their pre-determination to deny AGW, have made some basic and sloppy errors. It’s why they’re ignored.

              Nuetrino makes his key point here:

              You keep saying that Hottel et al say that at 0.00039atm of CO2 the emissivity is very low. The problem is that from everything I have read so far not one of them has made that claim.
              They all agree at very low pressure.distance CO2 has a very low emissivity. I have no reason to object to their findings.

              My objection is with your claim not any of theirs.
              Everywhere in the referenced material that I have read emissivity is plotted or calculated against a pressure.distance not just a pressure. So your claim that at 0.00039atm CO2 has an emissivity of 0.002 is unsupported by your references.

              Your article is trying to assert something about the emissivity of the atmospheric CO2, as such the distance used has to be comparable to the actual height of the atmosphere. Using a value of 0.00039atm.m does not represent the atmospheric column but rather just 1m of it.

              If Neutrino was wrong then effectively none of the instruments I worked with on a daily basis would work. It’s that simple.

              • Mack …
                15 September 2018 at 3:44 pm

                The cooling effect is because Neutrino only considers emissivity, when in fact, absorptivity has to be taken into account. They are mirror images, but Neutrino and others can cope with only one thing at a time to fit in the equations.
                Your instruments work fine because they look at reality…no man-made mathematical machinations.

                • Mack …
                  15 September 2018 at 4:28 pm

                  Look, I’ll even make it simpler for you, bright boy,
                  Hold a black ball and a white ball in either hand facing the sun,..which one gets warmer ?….yes, the black ball, with emissivity of about 1…the white ball is COOLER…COOLER, got it?… with emissivity about 0.

                  CO2 is a white ball…emissivity of 0.002..so it’s COOLER , it COOLS.

                  In fact, it’s so cool you’d probably need a pair of shades, if you could see it.

                  • RedLogix …
                    15 September 2018 at 10:29 pm

                    I’m a bit at a loss to know how to explain everything that is wrong with that analogy. It’s true, but completely inapplicable to the system we’re talking about.

                    I’ll be candid with you; I’ve had a long day here, I’m tired and not really up to a detailed explanation at the moment. If you are sincere in your desire to uncover the correct explanation, it’s readily available on numerous sites. But I suspect you already know that, and linking to them would be a waste of my limited time and energy.

                    And certainly I’m not going to exert myself for someone who arrives here in the last shower of rain, quixotically attacks on one topic only, and abuses people who’ve authored, moderated and participated for here for many years.

        • KJT 19.1.1.2
          15 September 2018 at 8:07 am

          The anti 1080 crowd, the anti vaxcers and now AGW deniers.

          Flat earthers never really went away, did they?

          The mystery is why the anti science true believers, have crawled out of the swamp lately, and again infested the internet.
          Big push from the Koch brothers and the usual suspects to muddy the waters? The same tactic that big tobacco used, with much success.

          • Mack 19.1.1.2.1
            15 September 2018 at 1:11 pm

            Yeah….the Koch brothers, big tobacco, and all the Merchants of Paranoid Crap by Naomi Klein, is about all you’ve got, KJT .

  20. R.P Mcmurphy 20
    14 September 2018 at 10:35 pm

    wow. thats really intelligent!

    • Mack 20.1
      15 September 2018 at 1:36 am

      Thanks Mcfurphy.

    • Dennis Frank 20.2
      15 September 2018 at 1:54 pm

      There’s also the possibility that he’s only pretending to be a retard. Seems to think global warming is due to increasing radiation from the sun after the little ice age. Nothing wrong with that. Will he now start claiming that we’re entering another ice age? It’s a favourite stance of denier climate scientists – to retain their funding from the oil industry. The important thing for a denier is to keep making it up as you go along. The sun is warming or cooling depending which way you look, past or future.

      • Mack 20.2.1
        15 September 2018 at 3:27 pm

        “Will he now start claiming that we’re entering another ice age ?”
        No, not necessarily , I’ve got no idea of the size’s of future sunspot cycles…(but for some strange reason they were able to predict the magnitude of the last 2 or 3 cycles)…maybe we will get back to the smaller sizes during the 1st half of the last century, considering the small size of the last one…..in which case, expect to get back to severe winters. eg during the Battle of the Bulge. 1930’s.. snow ++ in France.
        Whatever, there ain’t no man-made global warming going on ,mate. It’s all bullshit, a myth, a fantasy. During the huge El Nino of 1997-98 there was so little snow, that the Rainbow Ski-field at the Top of the South, went into liquidation and chair-lifts dismantled. Sorry, heaps of snow since, skifield people happy again this year.

        You’re not one of the loons who believes in the -18 deg C nonsense, are you, Dennis?

        • Dennis Frank 20.2.1.1
          15 September 2018 at 7:05 pm

          I’m not a climate scientist. My approach has always been to consider both sides & evaluate the weight of evidence. For instance, the climate scientist denier who wrote the book about Al Gore’s hockey stick graph, I thought he made a very good case for his critique.

          One of my brothers was a denier a decade ago (dunno if he still is) and sent me the original climate-gate emails. I found evidence of fakery by some climate scientist alarmists in there. Elementary scientific protocol is to enter all data points when drawing a graph of results of any experiment. I couldn’t believe it when I encountered a discussion suggesting eliminating outliers to make the graph more politically effective – then I had to believe it because of the evidence!

          Anyway, I believe both AGW and natural warming are driving the current escalation and therefore we must be sensible and apply the precautionary principle in regard to emissions. I’m neither true-believer nor sceptic. The truth/lie dichotomy doesn’t actually apply in science, since new evidence often emerges which changes our perception of reality.

  21. Mack 21
    15 September 2018 at 8:19 pm

    “I’m not a climate scientist”
    That’s one big plus for you there, Dennis. At least you’re not finding out that your whole life’s work is invalid.

    “…..Al Gore’s hockey stick graph,….”
    Not Al Gore’s hockey stick. It’s Michael Mann’s…..One small lie for Mann, one giant fraud for Mankind.

    “One of my brothers was a denier…”
    Well, at least there’s someone sensible in your family, he needs an apology from you. Give him a hug and notify the other brother/s.

    “…new evidence often emerges which changes our perception of reality”
    Reality doesn’t give a damn what your perceptions are… reality is reality… eg. the FACT that 1360watts/sq.m. arrives 24/7 at the TOA. from the Sun.

    https://principia-scientific.org/is-no-greenhouse-effect-possible-from-the-way-that-ipcc-define-it/#comment-11474
    (Start with my comments just above that one)

    • Dennis Frank 21.1
      15 September 2018 at 8:34 pm

      It’s almost a century since physicists proved that an electron is a particle when you prove it with the right experimental design and a wave when you prove it with a right experimental design. Since then physicists have known that reality depends on the detection system you use to identify it, and the perception of the result you ascertain.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.