by frog
I have a million ideas for a post, and not a moment to spare. But you folks have been doing a pretty good job without me today.
Carry on!
Published in THE GAME by frog on Mon, June 15th, 2009
Tags: general debate
General Debate June 15, 2009
Published: June 15, 2009
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Anyone read Gareth’s book yet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A clean, green slate!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter, someone will have. I’ve been reading ‘Topsoil and Civilisation’ by Vernon Gill Carter and Tom Dale. Have you read it yet? It’s brilliant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Anyone read Gareth’s book yet?”
Mmm…a Bryan Walker has read it: http://hot-topic.co.nz/poles-apart/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Air Con” is a damn good read.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The title says it all Bro.
Have you read Roger Douglas’ Living on the Pig’s Back?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks. I guess if Hot Topic dislike it, then I’d better read it
Off to the bookshop shortly….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
peter – see if you can get hold of a copy of ‘Topsoil and Civilization’ while you are there. It discusses the correlation between successful empires and the soil that sustains them. It sounds just the thing you would be interested in, in light of your beliefs about the connection between the economy and the environment. Hve you had a try at kahikatea’s question yet? I’m interested in your response.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gareth Morgan probably used “alarmist” because he was aiming at skeptics in the commercial world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# big bro Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
“Air Con” is a damn good read.
………….
I would say it is the authoritative guide for Act members.
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
God gave humans dominion over every other living thing on earth. This couldn’t be true, of course, since millions of other species existed for millions of years before humans existed. But this verse is used by fundamentalist Christians to justify their mistreatment of other species and disregard for the environment. After all, they believe that God created the other species just for them, so they can do whatever they please with them.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1_26.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth
David Garrett gets a mention in the Bible!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is now clear that the Nats were actively attempting to find a senior appointment for Christine Rankin.
I just can’t work out why, given that she played a significant role in the demise of the last National-led Government.
Anyone got any ideas?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
She’s got 40 texts sent to her years ago by John Key? (should have said ‘texters’)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Further on Morgan’s book, is the process used to come to the conclusions it made, which as far as I know is quite a rare one – teams!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Because she campaigned against Nanny State.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As in Mark Textor greenfly?
Or maybe the Worthy Rooter was was rogering her (before Key lost confidence in him)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Texter/Textor – Freudian slippery!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Only meat and dairy save NZ manufacturing from collapse
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/06/15/only-meat-and-dairy-save-nz-manufacturing-from-collapse/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – I read a third of Poles Apart. I stopped cold when a statement was made about the “eminently respectable science of economics”. I couldn’t pick it up for a week after that, having a science degree myself, and then Jeanette pinched the copy back. (It was hers all along) I do intend to push myself through it.
I think you’ll like it because it pays homage to all the right wing misinformation of the last 4 decades, then goes on to debunk the sceptics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But this verse is used by fundamentalist Christians to justify their mistreatment of other species and disregard for the environment.”
I think you are reaching there jh.
The bible also says God promises to destroy those that destroy the earth (revelation 11:18)
The global warming controversy is nuetral ground for Christians, if any thing, there is a net avantage for fundamentalists to push global warming as evidence of the sinfulness of humanity.
Wisharts book “air con” is a facinating read, and no one seems to be able to discredit his evidence. It seems to reveal the agenda of religious fundamentalists all right, just not the ones you may expect!.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP: “I guess if Hot Topic dislike it, then I’d better read it”
I’d certainly encourage you to. It was reading Fred Singer (ie, reading Auer, since his attacks on global warming just repeated what Singer said word for wor) that cause me to join the Green Party. His maths just didn’t add up, and when I modelled it it became obvious that it proved the exact opposite of what he claimed.
Read Air Con. But whenever it doesn’t make sense, dig a bit. And when the numbers seem odd, stop and check the maths. Build a little model of the equations he gives, if he gives any.
But if you want to read something on the topic, why not the IPCC reports? They’re not unreadably scariness – anyone with a bit of science background can get a lot out of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for the recommendations Frog and Greenfly.
>>Have you had a try at kahikatea’s question yet?
New slate n’ all that
I’m referring to this theory:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/the-richer-is-greener-curve/
I think there are problems with it i.e. they shift their manufacturing offshore, but I think there is an essential truth there. When people are worried about where their next meal is coming from, they aren’t going to be as concerned about long-term issues, such as environmental degradation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda said:
The global warming controversy is nuetral ground for Christians
By that, do you mean that Christians will do nothing/ are doing nothing to prevent global warming?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I just checked out the “yes vote” website.
Sadly it still seems the same lies are being told by the left when it comes to the anti smacking legislation, it also seems that the left are still determined to take total control of our life’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, as long as I’ve been commenting on this blog you have gone on and on about why the Greens have a social agenda as well as an environmental agenda.
I think you finally answered your question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter said: When people are worried about where their next meal is coming from, they aren’t going to be as concerned about long-term issues, such as environmental degradation
That might well be true Peter, but to base your actions around the desires of starving people isn’t environmentally or economically sound. There’s a bigger picture and a greater responsibility than short term survival. You’d surely not condone the cutting down of the last tree of a species for firewood to cook a meal for a hungry family, when the seeds of that tree could grow a forest? In these times when we have the benefit of food in our bellies, we should be looking foward and embedding resiliance in all spheres of our endeavours and the environment is the central sphere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jarbury! We should do that ‘little finger joiny thing!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry, I should have worded by above comment saying “… gone on and on about questioning why the Greens have a social agenda….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sadly it still seems the same lies are being told by the left when it comes to the anti smacking legislation, it also seems that the left are still determined to take total control of our life’s.
OK, paratanui, tell us what great lies you found on the YesVote site. Here’s your chance to tell some big lies of your own and score heaps of points. Can you rise to the challenge, or will you just slink away like usual.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(faintly, from a great distance … thar she blows ! …)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shunda said:
The global warming controversy is nuetral ground for Christians
By that, do you mean that Christians will do nothing/ are doing nothing to prevent global warming?”
By that I mean there is no religious reason to take one side or the other, I think jh is reading something into nothing.
Personally I think it’s all to convienient that the UN suddenly has a reason to attempt to tax the world and start wealth redistribution.
I think the IPCC have made sure global warming is antropogenic for that very reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – Christians aren’t required by their God to keep His creation, planet earth, in a good nick as humanly possible? I’d have thought that as landLord he’d expect at least that from his people. If he did, and if you agree to his terms, then you are neglecting your duties by not fighting global warming, tipped as it is to cause immense damage and suffering. What say you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And Greenfly, thanks for the recomendation of “‘Salve-A-shon’” How do you apply it?.
I have found plenty of places selling , but no body seems to be buying it.
One environmental fellow had some labeled ‘Salve-A-shon’ but there was a red label underneath that said “comrade cream” I don’t think he was being completely honest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
paratanui clocks off ‘work’ and goes home….i suspect someone has their life out of control – this coul;d be a cry for help Valis.
The Wanganui Chronicle described the ACT vote as ‘meagre’ today….and i’d been looking for the right word too – ‘Bridezilla” is still my fave
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“What say you?”
You know what I mean you pesky bug!! But just for you its SERMON TIME!
Here is the biblical answer to poor dairy practice and capitalist pigery:
Ezekiel 34:18-20
“Is it too little for you to have eaten up the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the residue of your pasture and to have drunk of the clear waters, that you must foul the residue with your feet?
And as for My flock, they eat what you have trampled with your feet, and they drink what you have fouled with your feet.
Therefore thus says the Lord God to them: “Behold, I myself will judge between the FAT and the lean sheep”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – the unguent you crave – ‘Salve-A-shon’ – is in fact miraculously produced internally by each and every one of us, by the simple act of concentrating! You can therefore, cease your worldly search and generate some of your own. I’ve pots of the stuff and am happy to share, but it doesn’t travel at all well, as people will poke and prod it til it curdles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Key says, ‘The wording of the referrendum is a little ambiguous’ and gives himself the perfect out, no matter what the outcome. Good for him. There will be no change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what about smacking Pollies then – orright???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wisharts book “air con” is a facinating read, and no one seems to be able to discredit his evidence.
LOL, its discredited all over the place, you just refuse to see it. Wishart is a charlatan. I’ve asked you to post us a few of his gems of wisdom but you never do, Shunda. Here’s another chance – what are you afraid of? Oh yes, he’s a charlatan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
copyright
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You need to buy a copy valis.
Go on I dare ya!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – cut the cr@p and tell us something sensible Wishart said in his book.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hang on a second!! the greenfly is asking for the cr@p to be cut?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – tell us something sensible Wishart said in his book.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ok, I’ll go and get it, I just have to finish writing something about piggy flu on kiwi blog first.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – you’re scaring those swine-flu deniers! They don’t respond well to reasonable argument. ‘Herald wave’ – let’s hope that’s wrong (but I suspect it isn’t!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Did you like my sermon greenfly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re onto it. How can you be so wrong about the climate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I do believe the climate is warming, just not convinced we can do anything about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Its SERMON TIME again,
The following is a statement by the executive director of a fundamentalist christian organisation I visited in the USA last year.
“Global warming is becoming one of the foremost and most controversial issues of our time. There are extremes on both sides. Liberals see conservatives as protectors of the greedy who are the most responsible for the problems, and conservatives see liberals as constantly inventing a crisis so they can pretend to save the world and are even more prone to use fear and pressure tactics than the right-wing extremists they continually vilify. There is truth to both these positions. There are also noteworthy scientists taking both sides concerning the cause of global warming, though there are few who are denying that it is infact happening. Even so, regardless of the issue of global warming, Christians should be the most diligent and faithful protectors of the environment. We should be doing many of the things that those who are so focused on global warming propose, even if there was no global warming.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jarbury/Greenfly
I’m not talking about the Easter Island extremes, I’m talking about the difference between poor economies and wealthy economies. Wealthy economies tend to have higher environmental standards, due to the hierarchy of needs. Everyone, from the capitalist to the earthmother knows that we can’t consume more resources than are available, so that’s a straw man.
I’m also talking about the message. In down economies, the environmental message shifts to the back burner, also due to the hierarchy of needs.
The “reducing GDP” message does not work in a thriving economy, and has even less chance in a down economy. Elections are about the back-pocket. Everything else is just noise.
I don’t buy the argument that if we increase GDP, we destroy the environment. Quite the opposite, as statistics show.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – in a garden, it doesn’t matter how bounteous the harvest, or how much if it is taken for sale or consumption, so long as the soil continues to improve. The base is the measure of sustainability. In New Zealand, we are not maintaining or growing our base. We are depleting our vital resources. This will end badly unless significant changes are made. Bottom line.
I personally am not arguing that ‘increasing the GDP will destroy the environment’. Are you arguing that our base resources here are improving? They need to be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Aside: Electric car racing coming to Le Mans soon: http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1021483_racing-goes-green-as-diesels-romp-at-le-mans
>>n New Zealand, we are not maintaining or growing our base. We are depleting our vital resources.
That’s an interesting one, Greenfly. But sitting here, I honestly don’t know what to believe. I’m not a soil scientist. You may have an agenda to push, for example
Are there some studies from both sides of the fence I can look at?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, yes you are looking for the ‘win-win’ situation, as am I. If you read the founding document of the idea of sustainable development (Our Common Future otherwise known as the Brundtland Reprot) you would see that it talks about poverty elimination as one of the most important tools in actually creating truly sustainable development. It’s not a “economy versus the environment” debate, but rather the same sort of “improve the lot of the people and improve the lot of the enviornment” that you seem to be promoting.
Sustainable development is a three-legged stool of environmental issues, economic issues and social issues. Make one of the legs of the stool too long or too short (ie by ignoring them or focusing on them too much) and the stool falls over. The problem I have with right-wingers is that they often don’t have a social issues leg to their stool, the environmental leg is cut off halfway and the economic leg is 3 metres long. The Green Party do seem to be the only party that realises the necessary balance between these three issues (although I will give Labour some credit for edging towards it).
You may argue that ‘sustainable development is an airy-fairy term’, but effectively what it means most simply is both providing for our current needs while ensuring those in the future can also provide for their needs. I want my 5 year old daughter to grow up in a decent world, and for her future children to do so as well, so sustainable development is important.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Wealthy economies tend to have higher environmental standards, due to the hierarchy of needs. ”
When I see evidence ptresented for this view it tends to be based on a very few indicators – heavy metal concentrations and river water quality and the like, which either has direct human health implications or is simply in your face unpleasant.
A whole bunch of more subtle environmental impacts are ignored -particularly habitat destruction. But probably the biggest thing allowing rich economies to claim higher environmental standards is the ability to out-source a large chunk of their production, and a certain amount of their waste disposal, to other countries.
To properly assess a country’s impact, you need to look at the total impact of its consumption, not just the environmental impact within its national boundaries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – in keeping with my gardening analogy, you should have asked,
“Do you have a barrow to push ?”
You think perhaps I’m a soil merchant or something? I’ve nothing to gain directly from the promotion of the idea that ‘the answer lies in the soil, son’, except a viable future (that little thing).
Having a look at ‘studies from both sides of the fence’ might help you Peter, but I suggest setting down and thinking about it for a while. Think Iran, Lebanon, North Africa etc. etc. and keep ‘soil’ uppermost in your mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sam, I also find it hard to believe that your average American has a lower environment impact than your average Congolese person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>To properly assess a country’s impact, you need to look at the total impact of its consumption, not just the environmental impact within its national boundaries.
Right. This is the problem I have with those calculations as well. What is meant by environmental standards, anyway? Even defining the question in a meaningful way is difficult.
Russia:
http://www.dni.gov/nic/special_russianoutlook.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No BP, environmental standards are a pretty straightforward thing to define, even if some of the intrinsic values are hard to quantify /calculate. You’re blowing smoke up our bums as usual.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re blowing smoke up our bums as usual
Feel the burn!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well that’s the thing – it’s not particularly conventional to measure ‘impact’ at all, just the standards that countries have *within* the country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, some people would see any damage to the environment as unacceptable, whilst others see some level of environment destruction as acceptable. It’s like talking sex with a priest vs a sex education therapist.
By existing, we shape and damage the environment. So what degree is acceptable?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, that’s the entire point of sustainability – to ensure that we have what could be described as a neutral effect on the enviornment.
The enviornment is self-replenishing to some extent, and we can take actions to enhance that enviornment. If our environmental effects are balanced by the self-replenishment of the environment and any actions we take to enhance the enviornment, then I guess we can feel as though we’re being sustainable.
Perhaps the problem with that situation is that we’ve been unsustainable for at least a couple of hundred years now, and to make up for that fact we probably need a bit more in the positive column than the negative column, to put the earth back in a situation where it can be sustainable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hehe … settle your ideas , and pick one. I love your writings, on all themes.
I would love to have your writing skills
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
was nice article.
thank you.
by.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just remember, if you smash your car and replace it, you have just added to the GDP. Even if you replace it with a worse car, the only thing the GDP counts is the money changing hands.
As measurements of economic health and wealth go it is DEEPLY, FATALLY FLAWED.
It is also favored by the banks and their model of currency, because it favors consumption and spending instead of preservation and savings.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)