by frog
Fight, fight, fight!
General Debate, 9 Dec
Published: December 9, 2009
Comment via Facebook
81 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
“Clowns complaining about the Circus” Cutting wit people will wonder who you are calling the clowns is it the 87% of “no” voters?
This was a surprising poll result:
http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/climate-change-confusion-you-decide-3241785/video
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
“As the great and the good descend on Copenhagen to decide how to tackle climate change the debate still rages over whether or not humans have created the problem.
The climate change issue has vexed Ian Wishart and Gareth Morgan so much that both have published books on the topic. However, they are on opposing sides of the debate.
On one side of the argument Wishart has written a book entitled Air Con which comes down on the side of the sceptics, whereas Morgan’s book, Poles Apart, states that humans are responsible for global warming.
Both spoke to TVNZ’s Close Up programme and while they may have differing opinions they do agree that there is a warming trend, the issue is whether or not this is predominantly caused by humans.
Wishart, a journalist and conspiracist says that global warming is almost certainly a natural cycle and any human influence is minor.
He claims climate scientists have lied to make global warming appear far worse and that the current scare is being fuelled by greed with big players making a fortune by clipping the ticket on carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes.
Wishart says that usually he would trust scientists, but with the “climategate” scandal showing that science has been doctored the trust has been lost when it comes to climate change.
“If these people have to lie about the evidence you have to ask the question ‘how good is the evidence really?’,” he says.
He says there is an enormous amount of money in the industry and the issue is how much money is being made by people with a vested interest?
“With climate change you have an estimate of $US145 trillion which is going to be taken from Western economies and given to the third world in the name of climate change. We had better be sure it is happening for human reasons because if not it is the biggest bank robbery in history,” he says.
Morgan on the other hand is a former sceptic and multimillionaire who has spent millions interviewing the foremost scientists on both sides of the debate and he is convinced climate change is well and truly here.
He says it is not an issue of public opinion, simply a question of science and scientists agree the world is warming because of the co2 produced by humans.
Morgan says it is not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that climate change is caused by humans but that “as at the end of 2008 the balance of evidence was that it was being driven by humans”.
He says there is enough evidence of climate change to invoke a policy on it.
Morgan admits there has been questionable behaviour from some scientists when it comes to doctoring data, but it needs to be remembered that there are thousands of scientists working on climate change and not just a few.
When it comes to the Copenhagen climate change talks Wishart says nothing is going to come from it and it is going to cost a fortune.
Morgan on the other hand says that “as long as Obama and the Chinese can reach an agreement we will all follow it”.
——-
The result was 77% Wishart 23% Morgan. If this is so then public opinion is on the side of the sceptics?
Like or Dislike:
8 
3 (+5)
So Bro – how do you sleep at night, supporting as you do, Roger Douglas and thereby cruelty to animals (pigs). I thought you were a strong opponent to animal cruelty, not an apologist for it!
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
As has been pointed out elsewhere, where Wishart says that he normally trusts scientists, we must laugh aloud. He’s a creationist.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7 (-1)
Once again Fly attacks the messenger rather than the message.
Like or Dislike:
6 
10 (-4)
Answer
The
Question
Like or Dislike:
2 
8 (-6)
Fly
I sleep very well thanks, unlike you and the Greens I am very involved in the fight against animal cruelty.
How do you sleep Fly?, how do you look animal cruelty activists in the eye when you know that the Greens campaign on the issue but have no intention of ever doing anything about it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10 (-6)
Do you forgive Roger Douglas for his cruel behaviour to animals then Bro?
Forgive and forget?
Like or Dislike:
5 
7 (-2)
“I sleep very well thanks, unlike you and the Greens I am very involved in the fight against animal cruelty.”
You don’t know much about the Greens Bro – by the way you use the epithet IMHO – thye “H” stands for “Humble”.
Cut it out willya…!
Lets just say you are involved in a Fight – mostly with yourself I’d reckon.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
6 
20 (-14)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
5 
20 (-15)
Mark
I know plenty about the Greens, I know you have made a big issue about animal cruelty in every election campaign, you con votes out of those of us who care passionately about this issue and time after time you do nothing about it.
You ever conned a vote out of me once, the Nat’s, Act, Labour and all the other parties are never going to tackle the issue, this I know and it annoys the hell out of me, however, I think a party that campaigns on the issue knowing full well they have no intention at all to do anything about it is shameful.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10 (-6)
Well Bro, I have to say I have some sympathy for you claims that the Greens haven’t saved every animal on the planet from mankind’s cruelty. I’ve spoken out several times myself when I’ve seen Greens who have levered themselves inside the pelts of some quite endangered animals, an orangutan was the latest poor beast to loose its skin for the sake of some protest or other, and I do wish they’d stop doing it!
I am astonished however, at the slippery, slidey and quite frankly childish way that you avoid addressing the question about Roger Douglas and his pig-farming past? Why are you frightened to discuss it? It’s relevant to the discussion, it’s a question that has been put to you many times. Failing to speak to it just makes you look silly Bro. You make many good points here, but all ring hollow when you aren’t man enough to answer one question directed at you. Be brave, haul up your britches, grit your teeth and tell us what you think about Douglas and the Sows.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
That poll , even if biased….. 77 : 23….???? I would have expected the opposite.
Is their any reputable polling on these issues…. surely it is important to know.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
bigbro: Look at http://www.greens.org.nz/animalwelfare/editview and then tell me that the greens don’t push the animal welfare issue every chance they get. And then show me where any other party even has an animal welfare category on their web site
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Rimu
That is all propaganda designed to attract the animal welfare vote.
The fact is that you had nine years to do something about it, you managed to get your social agenda passed (anti parent S59 bill), you managed to get your food agenda passed, these things you took seriously.
I have already accepted that no other party is going to do something about animal cruelty, my issue with the Greens is that they have the same attitude to the issue but lie about it every three years.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
jh “The result was 77% Wishart 23% Morgan. If this is so then public opinion is on the side of the sceptics?”
No. The collected opinion of a small proportion of people stupid enough to waste 75 cents on a text to a TV poll is meaningless. Close Up failed to present any useful information whatsoever in their debate between two non-scientists.
The climate does not care about public opinion…
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
22 (-18)
Majority support emission cuts – poll
telephone survey of 500 people found New Zealanders generally support an international treaty on climate change even if it would cost them money.
The poll was paid for by the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, which represents major emitters, and carried out by UMR research between November 23 and November 27 – the week after damaging emails from an international group of climate scientists were taken from the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit and leaked on to the internet.
The poll results were analysed by market researcher Duncan Stuart, who found that most people, about eight out of 10, agreed that climate change was happening and was a problem, although many were unsure whether it was caused by people.
About 17 per cent agreed with the statement that the world’s climate was having the same ups and downs it had always had and that there was no evidence of a problem, while 44 per cent agreed there was clear proof warming was caused by human activities.
The survey, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 per cent, found support for cutting greenhouse gases fell away once the costs per person reached about $500 a year.
But it also found that changing the question slightly could lead people to give answers that were seemingly contradictory.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10614309
that’s not 23 Morgan 77 Wishart Big Bro.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
“..And then show me where any other party even has an animal welfare category on their web site..”
sure rimu..
i’ll believe their hearts/minds are in/up for it..
when they stop eating the topic under discussion..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
All or nothing is it? Right then … I’ll never believe that the Greens support animal welfare until they have restored all of the world’s forests to what they were before humans set their soft feet on the planet!
Not til then!
Or … I’ll praise every effort the less-than-perfect Greens make toward animal welfare.
Can’t decide which…
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Well Bro – Vote Green so they got some real political Power, instead of throwing your Brief away on the 1% Party – I GUARANTEE you’ll see some Altered Attitudes re animal welfare in this country.
Don’t be ‘Blinded by the Baubles’ – get real.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
“..Or … I’ll praise every effort the less-than-perfect Greens make toward animal welfare..”
could you list them for me..?
so i can ‘praise’ them..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Nommopilot:
“jh “The result was 77% Wishart 23% Morgan. If this is so then public opinion is on the side of the sceptics?”
No. The collected opinion of a small proportion of people stupid enough to waste 75 cents on a text to a TV poll is meaningless. Close Up failed to present any useful information whatsoever in their debate between two non-scientists.”
I would have expected it to be closer even with block voting (cheating). It isn’t a result that makes any sense as apart from the odd sceptic film the mainstream is pro. I can’t see the opinion pieces from skeptics having that much influence as people have a sense of how solid the scientific community is. But what if there was a backlash (eg from farming) and a case of interest clouding reason?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Did anyone else see it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yes..i saw it..
it was absolute rubbish..
eight and a half minutes of the host bellowing..
..and the odd opinion of both..
as to adding to the sum of human knowledge/understanding..?
on this .. or any subject..?
it didn’t come within coo-ee..
it was a total waste of that eight and a half minutes of my life..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Maybe, bro and Phil, an alternative approach would be to ask you what specifically you think we should be doing, but are not?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Agreed, it was a silly debate that informed nobody. If TVNZ wanted a real debate that people might have learned something from they should have got Jim Salinger and Chris de Freitas on.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Mark
No chance!, I was conned once, I will not be conned again.
The Greens are more interested in social policy, the environment and animal welfare are way, way down the list.
You had nine years to do something.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8 (-6)
Kevin
“Maybe, bro an alternative approach would be to ask you what specifically you think we should be doing, but are not?”
Yeah, keep your election promises!
And please do not give me that rubbish about not being in govt, you managed to get your social policy passed under Labour, you could have done the same with animal welfare.
I challenged Toad and Frog to make animal welfare a non negotiable part of your coalition talks, if you had done so I would have held my nose and voted Green.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Well Bro, not only the Greens your best bet for animal welfare – they are the Party most likely to do something about the disgusting state of Human Rights in this country.
Give it some thought will you? – we are not Suppossed to have the death penalty here – but we do!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
it would take too long..kevin..
also..i am an abolitionist..
so am not really interested in slightly larger prisons/’welfarism’..
the gulf between us is only emphasised by russel norman currently opposing the dairy-factory-farms..
on the grounds it will damage our ‘free-range’ market-image..
..and could hurt the export dollars we make from these miseries…
(see what i mean..?..)
i just want the animals to stop being hurt..
it’s a very clear/simple message…
the abolitionist one..
and a message that is so so ‘green’..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
and c’mon..!..really..!..kevin..!
the green party/m.p’s have expended as much effort on this ’cause’..
as they have/did on medical marijuana..
..eh..?
says it all really..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
“.If TVNZ wanted a real debate that people might have learned something from they should have got Jim Salinger and Chris de Freitas on..”
i disagree..toad..
wishart..of course..is a joke..
but gareth morgan is particularly potent/pungent on this issue/topic..
he wasn’t given a chance..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I respect your ‘abolitionist’ beliefs Phil, but as you know they aren’t Green Party policy, so that isn’t what we are working for in Parliament. As to my request for specific suggestions about what you and bro think we should be doing but aren’t, I have a genuine interest: if there is a way I could be spending my time better, then I should certainly do that, so if there are suggestions, what are they?
Bro’s response (we should have made animal welfare issues a bottom line in our talks with the incoming Government 4 years ago) isn’t really very helpful (at least in the short term, but I can bear it in mind in the future when we get to be in a position of negotiating strength with an incoming Government) in determining what I work on day to day.
I have an interest in the animal welfare issues amd have done some media work around sow crates, and am doing a bit now on factory dairy farming. Keen to do more, but it’s not obvious to me what action on my part would be helpful right now.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Kevin
The problem you have in selling the anti sow crate and anti factory diary message is a historical one.
Many people now turn off when faced with a Green MP telling them something, of course this is a reaction to the highly unpopular anti smacking legislation.
You do have one MP who seems to have come through the anti smacking mess mostly unscathed and that is Sue K.
If your concern is genuine (and that is something I have to be convinced about) then the best way to get this message across is to use Sue K to sell the message, do not use her to sell any other Green policy, do not use her to push the climate change con, use her for animal welfare and nothing else.
You may be amazed to see the level of support you will gain, I spend 80% of my leisure time involved with dogs and their owners, while very few of the people I deal with are vegans or vegetarians not one of them will eat anything other than free range chickens, pork or free range eggs.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Hey Kevin,
I’d like to see a total focus on investment in Green infrastructure and environmental protection of forestry, fresh water and marine areas…
Do you have a private members bill currently Kevin..?
There is a documentary about the state of our fishing industry (I’ve forgotten the name) and overseas vessels are allowed to get away with the following practices NZ vessels aren’t namely:
- They do not pay the NZ minimum wage.
- They do not meet NZ H & S standards.
- They are not required to have 2 MFish inspectors on board as the NZ vessels are required to (at the NZ vessels expense costing many tens of thousands per 6 week trip).
The lack of inspectors means we really have no idea if quotas are being stuck to (and judging by the world’s fishing industry’s normal standards) I’d suggest not even close, it’s also costing NZers jobs, assets and risking on-going sustainibility…
I private members bill dealing with the above three issues by amending the fisheries act would be fabulous.
Also a bill to place 40% of our EEZ into a marine reserve as suggested is required worldwide by Greenpeace.
I think the GND is a good start on the Green Infrastructure just far too small, maybe another stand alone 10 year Green Infrastructure Investment Strategy or similar..?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
‘free range eggs’ – how do they range free?
Rolling? Jiggling?
I’ve always wondered.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Fly
If you want to gain traction then do not let Russ anywhere near this topic.
The vast majority of the people we need to reach if we are going to succeed in this turn off at the first sight of Russ.
Like or Dislike:
1 
10 (-9)
Good post greenfly, saw a guy on tv down your way last night, he didn’t even hide the fact that it is all about increased production.
Once again people are unwilling to accept the natural limitations of the land, just cause you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Bro – Sue is a good MP to front issues of the treatment of animals, as you say.
Have you composed a response to my Roger Douglas question yet?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Hi Shunda – I saw him too. People are asking the question,
“Why are so many of those representing the dairy industry, Dutch?”
Any suggestions?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
““Why are so many of those representing the dairy industry, Dutch?”
Any suggestions? ”
Its a conspiracy greenfly, it has taken them 200 odd years and the threat of rising oceans to finally begin what they have been planning for centuries – The establishment of the NEW zeeland. First they take over the primary industry, next comes the invasion…..
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Get your trebuchet ready….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s right Fly; I never heard a Dog ‘Scream’ before.
Not til the Crack-Heads moved in next door.
Guess it’s ‘Training’ huh?
Maybe I should make a Tape of the unGodly noise the beatings produce.
(despite the worst of treatment, his dogs still like me!)
There again, a tomato yelled when I went to slice it, last year….
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Mark
I take it you have reported this abuse to the SPCA?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Shunda – you’re right! Curse those Van der Rumens! (and the Van der Rectums!)
*hat-tip JPC
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i think the most valuable thing you can do kevin..is to use the resources at your fingertips to highlight the realities of these institutional cruelties..
(call it the mike-king-bounce..)
another aspect that is easily sold..and should not offend anyone..(save pork producers..)..
is to emphasise the health and economic benefits of/from not eating animals..
i mean..if you just lean into those two…
..that would only help..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
A tomato yelled ?!?
(Was it witness to the beating of the eggs?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
um..!..you could also go vegan..
and lead by example..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – I’ve a couple of vegetarians staying with us at the moment. The woman has been v for ten years and is the very picture of glowing good health, slender and nimble, practices yoga daily and runs every evening. Her man has become v just recently and is on his way to the same state of good health. We talk about such things over dinner. Naturally, we eat vegetarian while they are staying with us. They are both from Utah. She is Mormon and has been a missionary working in Spain, spreading the word she believes to be good. She’s also very good at promoting her dietry preferences and the benefits of them. No arguments from us so far.
btw – I’ll not eat turkey at Christmas either.
Had three Greenpeace reps call in for lunch – came to see our garden. We had soup made from our own vegetables. It was a very interesting meal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There again, a tomato yelled when I went to slice it, last year….
That’s because it didn’t want to be part of your Bloody Mary, Mark.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for the suggestions. Sue is the spokesperson on animal welfare, bro, so takes the lead on these issues, but our general practice is for others to contribute when they can. Good suggestions Phil.
On average it takes smokers 7 attempts to successfully quit smoking (so “keep trying” is an important message for them). Maybe my next going vegan attempt will work for me!
Tangential comment: Green MPs really do value positive suggestions and the feedback we receive through the blog – please keep it coming!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Philu/ Toad
but gareth morgan is particularly potent/pungent on this issue/topic..
he wasn’t given a chance..
——
I doubt anyone responded who were still “learning”. Only those with an interest would have bothered to respond so why so many Wishart?
=========
perhaps it’s organised resistance:
“Ian Wishart believes the credibility of the climate science community has been damaged by the Climategate leaked emails scandal, which revealed evidence of data tampering and the rejection of any alternate viewpoints.
The massive growth in blogs, along with social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, is now putting real pressure on the increasingly mis-named “mainstream media”.
The Climategate scandal was broken online by bloggers, it was spread quickly across the world by bloggers (plus Twitterers and Facebookers), until it was finally picked by major print and broadcast media outlets around the world.
The media do their absolute darndest to ensure the Green movement get only positive publicity, and as much as possible. The time honoured theory of media balance (as in canvassing the opinions of both sides) does not to be as important, if that story has anything to do with green or liberal issues.
The initial (albeit begrudging) coverage of “Climate-gate” by the msm has since grown into genuine commentary and investigative research, as some of the world’s top reporters look into the scale of coverups by the climate change brigade.
Ian Wishart himself sums up the situation well… “The poll illustrates that with nearly 90% of the population wired online now, mainstream media can no longer assume that just because they refuse to cover a story, nobody will hear about it.”
”
http://www.davegeeblog.com/2009/12/climate-scepticism-growing-despite.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Seems like the MSM is not doing a poor job of highlighting the sceptics arguments, quite the opposite in fact…
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
“You may well be right, plus there is the Close Up demographic to consider. My parents watch it every night and they don’t believe we are contributing to climate change. They listen to people like Leighton Smith who are very good at making rational-sounding arguments against it. I think the poll result is symptomatic of the problems faced in conveying the science of climate change – the sceptics have a better sounding yarn to spin because it taps into the conflict-loving, anti-authoritarian streak we all harbour deep down…
“http://sciblogs.co.nz/griffins-gadgets/2009/12/09/climate-debate-by-tv-text-poll-no-contest/”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I certainly didn’t bother to vote in Close Up’s silly poll! To call their coverage a debate was a farce. Having these two guys attempt to sum up their respective arguments in five minutes and then ask people to decide their view was simply nonsense – and I wrote to TVNZ and told them so. It’s reducing one of the greatest issues humankind has ever faced to the level of whether we believe Tiger Woods has had sex with nine or ten women. I’m not surprised at the result if that’s the level it gets pitched at.
I’m very clear that the majority of people either have little knowledge of the issues, if they do don’t care, or don’t know what to do about it so go back to living life as they know it. No-one in their right mind wants AGW to be ‘true’. I certainly don’t! So I’m afraid that our collective denial in the cause of surviving is what will actually destroy us as a species – while the planet will go on doing what it has always done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The new American Ambassador – they’ve sent us a soak! Cool!
In other news,Nick Smith says,
” The Government hasn’t applied itself to the question of climate-change refugees”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dear Bro – Imagine I’ve just returned home…imagine that reporting a Maori for beating his dogs will bring you a greater beating from his mates.
I would not dare – not in a provincial Kiwi towm….tell me, I am genuinely curious – are we in Apartheid here – or just a breath away?
Nz is a beautiful country, hardly worth living here because of fatal Racism.
Ps The Pakeha and the Maori colluded to extiungiush the Mori-Ora Race – all our hands are washed in their blood.
Such arguements are so irrelevant -I’d rather Vote with my feet than conflict with ignorant luddites.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH
To debate Wishart you have to be prepared to challenge him on the things he is claiming as fact. You have to pick up the notion that 22 million in research grants is not being used to create propaganda, and does not go into Jones’ pocket as Wishart misleadingly permits the audience to think. You have to listen in real-time and go offensive to get Wishart to show his true colors and his true lack of scientific understanding.
I watched half. Gareth is not a public prevaricator. Wishart is, and Wishart seeks the spotlight with a vengeance. So 77% of the people viewing that clip will see Gareth as losing, because Gareth isn’t interested in Wishart’s conspiracies and Wishart is basically presenting an UNOPPOSED view… and the science isn’t even realistically discussed in the first half of the clip.
Which is what happens in general. Scientists aren’t up for the political interaction… thinkers don’t usually compete well with talkers and in particular with liars, in terms of public opinion. It has ever been thus. I have a game I play when I do watch any of it or read any of it. I call it “spot the first false statement” because the conversation goes off the tracks as soon as ANY false notion is accepted as true. Gareth failed to contest the first falsehood by Wishart. He thought it minor and by itself it would be, but by steering the conversation into conspiracy rather than science the result became a foregone conclusion.
Scientists are very bad at this game. Morgan is alas, no better.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“Dear Bro – Imagine I’ve just returned home…imagine that reporting a Maori for beating his dogs will bring you a greater beating from his mates.”
I am no hero Mark, but some things are worth getting a beating for, I cannot abide animal cruelty, indeed one or two of you may well remember that I got myself into a spot of bother a couple of years ago when I witnessed a puppy getting a beating from a rather large chap.
To me there are some things that one just does irrespective of the potential consequences, you always go to the assistance of a lady who is being hassled by a man, and you always go and help any animal that is being beaten by a human.
As for his ‘mates’, well get yourself a big baseball bat or a gun.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
The other thing is that you have to talk fast. Otherwise you can’t get your point across and you invite the host to interrupt. Gareth’s debating skills are negligible.
You basically have to have a double shot of espresso about 15 minutes before showtime and have reviewed the facts over the course of the last 4 hours. Then you go on the attack. Facts, by the score, at least 3 and possibly 4 points in a minute. You have to make it clear that you are in command of your subject. Gareth did not do that at all. Wishart did… but his subject had nothing to do with science.
Too bad.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BJ,
I cant find the last discussion we had in the multitude of postings.
Basically I hold the view that the IPCC contributing scientists anf their peer reviewers of their data were beholding to the funding providers. Not saying that their findings are wrong, just that they need to be taken in the context of knowing who provides the funding and what is provided in return for continued funding.
Something better explained here
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/
To quote
The essay is worth a read as are the 90 odd comments.
This explains my point better then I could ever have written
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not to mention that Gareth is an economist, a species that is nearly universally despised in this day and age, while Wishart is a journalist who is at home in media situations
I rate Gareth highly, myself.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
You just have to read Kiwiblog to see how motivated these people are. They have all the skill of people in the multi level marketing industry (Amway) able to produce ma and pa level answers to all these big technical questions. All they had to do was use twitter (?) ie a mass texting ” His Holliness Ian is on Close Up : text B to 7857″… now.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
No future in escalating Violence Bro – I stop the cruelty I can.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments (wholeheartedly) – I invite you to come stay in the Reality – no future in being run over by some thug in a car either….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ps; My time is taken up by trying to keep those humans under 30 alive at the moment – can’t say I’m winning them all either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thank goodness, the 24/7 shopping bill was defeated in the house last night.
My thanks go to those National party MP’s who voted for common sense, I also applaud all those who voted against it.
Well done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Gerrit
I can’t find it either. I responded to a post I thought might not even have been you at one point and by the time I finally posted it had disappeared and I wound up having to ask for mine to be deleted as there was nothing to answer. Not to worry.
I have read his work and I often like it but he makes an error. in interpreting the paleoclimate. Yes, the temperature WAS warm at the start of this interglacial, but it is 50/50 at this point, that it was any warmer than now. Previous changes of climate would almost ALL have had CO2 and Methane releases as positive feedbacks while reservoirs of such substances existed to be released. The likely candidates are in permafrost locked or deep ocean methane… as yet untapped as the temperature rises due to our own CO2 release.
the emails do suggest that a certain amount of data-fudging and scientific misconduct is going on in the large and lucrative scientific industry surrounding climate change.
Actually they don’t.
“Hagbard’s law” is indicative, not definitive. There are MANY scientists who are regarded as peers out there. Only a handful come to mind as arguing against the theory but the point is that they can and do, and while they fail to convince, they exist and are funded and supported in their work. It isn’t necessary to get a particular result to get funded.
I am astonished that he regards the science as “lucrative”. Jones drew 22.6 million in research Grants over 19 years. On average 1.19 million per year. This doesn’t just support Jones. It supports him and all the researchers at CRU. Some of the other researchers bring in grants as well, but most work would go through Jones and the CRU proper. The time period is long enough that inflation is going to stuff up my numbers. We’ll try anyway. Average the salary per scientist over that same 20 years. would have been 60 rising to about 90 now, so say 70K average? Then apply the overhead rate for the university… call it 50%… so about 100K per scientist… so Jones and CRU have had about 10 scientists funded for full time work through the grants and no money extra for any additional work like (for instance) funding the collection of data by some Russians, or actual travel to Antarctica or other actual research overheads… So he’s doing what he is SUPPOSED to be doing, for fair pay, and not wealthy because of his work.
It just isn’t enough to influence the science… and it doesn’t influence Lindzen or Pielke(Jr or Sr) or Spencer or Svensgard…
Lets compare this with (for instance)
John W. Rowe, CEO of Exelon (a utility) – $12+ Million this year. Personally.
Lynn Elsenhaus, CEO of Sunoco (oil company). $12+ Million this year. $12+M in actual take home pay.
Or Richard Scaife, billionaire heir and benefactor of the Scaife foundation. Doesn’t work, never needed to. Funding the CEI, along with the usual suspects.
Now these guys are CLEARLY doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, aren’t they? Pure altruism that they want to make sure that CEI gets all the money it needs to ensure that their version of the truth about the science gets told.
Gerrit, I repeat, the right is looking for a conspiracy in ENTIRELY the wrong place. I wish to hell they’d LOOK, because most are perceptive enough folks if they actually took the time.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
I dont believe that the “right” is at all interested in being a skeptic to global climate change.
Carbon will become the new dollar and the moneyman are lining up to make a bonanza from the trading (that is IF you think capitalists are on the “right”).
The left are not skeptical because they get world government by stealth (or so they think – the moneyman will be dominant).
It is the middle ground (middle class if you like)who will end up paying through the nose for carbon credits.
Capitalism will survive in fact having successfully denuded the middle classes with bail out money, the banks are going to be into the new “money” (CarbonDollars) like Jack Flynn.
While the left leaning UN under Helen Clark will be trying to pin the tail on the donkey and distribute the carbon wealth to poorer nations.
Anyone seriously thinks that the poorer nations are going to be better off?
Anyone seriously thinking that the climate will change?
What will happen is a loss of sovereignty to the UN and carbon credit capitalist merchants.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the seeds are here…
staring at me accusingly from the top of the fridge..
earthworks start tomorrow..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Garrit
The ticket clippers will only get our money if we don’t act to actually reduce our CO2 and other GHG emmissions. We would be better off planting forests, controlling pests, converting Huntley to operate on wood or charcoal, converting some of our vehicle fleet to CNG, reinjecting CO2 at Kapuni, building more wind farms and investing in some wave-powered generation, etc.
Then we would be selling the carbon credits.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor29,
You really believe that?
Once the corporates and the UN get a cashflow going they wont be able to help themselves and keep rorting the system.
You can trust them, I dont.
Has anyone set a figure on when the climate change is under control? No so if we stop emmiting carbon and the earth cools guess what? Think the corporates and the UN will let the cashflow dry up?
No, there will other scams to cook up.
The whole idea is not to reduce emmisions, it is to cost and sell them.
Sure try and reduce and see wat else will be traded. Water anyone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t need to trust them. It won’t be NZ money that they will be collecting
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
looks like you need a new thread every second day..eh..?
hell..!..you could even give every day a ‘trial’..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
in the meantime..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What range of punishments are there for stealing someones credit card details and then using said details to purchase goods? What is the standard punishment for such fraud?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
Usually a $100 fine plus court costs for the initial 10 offences
then 40hrs home detetion increasing to 60 hrs for the next 11 to 20 offences then 40 hrs PD to 100 hrs PD after that.
Psst, don’t tell Keith, otherwise we will have to wear his bewailing the harshness of these penalties.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Pentwig,
Thanks.
Will a fraud charge appear on their criminal history and essentially make them unemployable?
Do they have to repay the money, generally?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Generally their sentence will take into account any reparation, so if they can repay what they have defrauded, they will usually do so.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)