NZ Green Party
Sunday night viewing

If you’re on the couch this Sunday evening you’ve got a great television choice; TV2′s The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe or Prime’s The Great Global Warming Swindle. In other words we have a choice between two fictional fantasy myths with thinly hidden conservative agendas.  You can read more at MediaLens about the Great Global Warming Swindle, whereas CS Lewis is a good enough writer that you should read the Narnia Chronicles themselves rather than any analyses.

Myself, I’ll be opting for TV1′s The Virgin Queen, which the Dominion Post describes as thriller about a feminist, nonconformist Queen Elizabeth I.

206 thoughts on “Sunday night viewing

  1. I am watching Recount on HBO, its an HBO movie about the 2000 presidential recount in Florida.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. Anyone know who they’ve got for the panel discussion afterward? Hopefully someone who knows a little about presenting science in an understandable way, and showing willfully ignorant people for what they are.

    It’s shameful how poor an advocate for reality these sorts of things usually find.

    Because it really is just a matter of the absorption and emission spectra of CO2, CH4, and other problem gases, along with the way that burning fossil fuels releases prehistoric carbon stores back into the atmosphere as CO2 (in trivially calculable amounts, 2.CH2 + 3.O2 => 2.CO2 + 2.H2O, where CH2 is the basic component of hydrocarbons). An atmosphere with more CO2 must be hotter at equilibrium (though whether it can reach equilibrium without triggering catastrophic climate change along the way is another matter).

    Without even getting into feedback systems (a hotter atmosphere carries more water vapor, which in turn heats the world, not to mention the hurricanes, oh, and warmer oceans hold less dissolved CO2, and the possibility of a Methane stir, …) it’s plainly the gasified carbon fossils, dummy.

    And hey, the sun puts out 1% more energy every 100 million years or so, so we’ll end up warmer than the prehistoric eras when this much Carbon was in the atmosphere, by about 2 degrees per 100 million year difference.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. Apparently, theres a decision coming out on the complaint(s) about ‘Swindle’ in the UK any day now http://flet.org/node/20

    And someone say something about An Inconvenient Truth being ‘full of errors’ or something, I dare yuz!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. Why not watch it Frog, are you afraid that people might see through the climate change con?

    I have see both the fictional work of Al Gore and the highly informative “Swindle”, one deals in facts the other is a figment of Al Gores imagination.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. Aha!

    As usual you don’t seem to have much of a basis for your opinions BB…? Anything in particular you disagree with about AIT?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. tussock: the panellists are apparently David Wratt (NIWA), Martin Manning (Climate Change Research Institute), William de Lange (Waikato Uni), Cindy Baxter (Greenpeace) and Leighton Smith (sceptic)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. Leighton Smith the radio-guy isn’t even a scientist! Though neither is Baxter, I think. Who else is a denier/sceptic/cynic? Can’t just be Smith…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. Willem de Lange is the other sceptic. My information is that it went as well as could be expected from a non-sceptic viewpoint.

    But the showing of a debate doesn’t take away from Prime’s responsibility to ensure reasonable accuracy in the stuff it broadcasts. TGGWS contains errors of fact and outright distortions that have been pointed out to the film’s makers but remain unaddressed in the version to be shown here. I wonder is a Broadcast Standards complaint might eb in the offing?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. I’d think the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice Standard 5 (Accuracy) may be the one you are looking for BucolicOldSirHenry.

    5a Significant errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

    5b Broadcasters should refrain from broadcasting material which is misleading or unnecessarily alarms viewers.

    5c Broadcasters must ensure that the editorial independence and integrity of news and current affairs is maintained.

    5d Factual reports on the one hand, and opinion, analysis and comment on the other, should be clearly distinguishable.

    5e Broadcasters must take all reasonable steps to ensure at all times that the information sources for news, current affairs and documentaries are reliable.

    Complaints can be made here. Let me know how it goes and I’ll ensure accurate coverage of the hearing of any complaints that are made ;)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. Frog,

    Would it be to much to expect people to make up their own minds?

    What they should do is run the Al Gore docu and the TGWWS side by side (well one after the other) and let people make up their own minds.

    What is all this talk of complaints to the Broadcasting Standards (BS for short) Authority?

    What are you afraid off. No courage in your convictions?
    Not like a free and democratic orientated party like the Greens to discuss banning a doco.

    Mind you the compalint to the BS Authority will be good for the sceptics. Drags out the the whole thing at every level for free publicity.

    The swindle is actually that if we pay pay Al Gore carbon taxes he will ensure that we can keep emitting because he has an unauditted carbon sink that will soak up those emmisions. Clipping 30% of the carbon taxes for himself.

    What a load of crock.

    If you are serious about climate change you would welcome this doco as a platform to inform the populate of the truth.

    Instead you are like those religious folk who want to ban any freedom unless fits into their own narrow band of opinion.

    Sad.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. Gerrit: “…Prime’s responsibility to ensure reasonable accuracy in the stuff it broadcasts. TGGWS contains errors of fact and outright distortions that have been pointed out to the film’s makers but remain unaddressed in the version to be shown here .”

    Means nothing?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. Gerrit Says:
    May 27th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    Frog,

    > Would it be to much to expect people to make up their own minds?

    > What they should do is run the Al Gore docu and the TGWWS side by side (well one after the other) and let people make up their own minds.

    Because the ‘swindle’ mockumentary has been found to base its arguments on factually incorrect claims. You can’t rely on every person watching a programme to check the accuracy of the claims, thus the average viewer can’t make a reasonable comparison.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. If every “outright distortion” was challenged, One Left Wing News would never be heard from again.

    Whatsamatter Frog/Henry? Scared the antidote polemic to Gores polemic might make people think?

    >>mockumentary

    If it’s good for the Gore gander….

    Mike Moores modus operandi is polemic rant. Perhaps you should take his works to Broadcasting Standards?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. BluePeter Says:
    May 27th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

    > Mike Moores modus operandi is polemic rant. Perhaps you should take his works to Broadcasting Standards?

    I don’t think the broadcasting standards authority would be interested in questions of style and format like whether something is a polemic rant or nt, but if you know of factual inaccuracies in a Michael moore documentary that has been shown on NZ television, you probably should take it to the BSA.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. >>you probably should take it to the BSA

    I don’t believe in shutting people up just because I don’t like what they say.
    Which is what this is REALLY all about, isn’t it.

    But please bring a complaint. The more media air this counter-argument receives, the better…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. Whatsamatter Frog/Henry? Scared the antidote polemic to Gores polemic might make people think?

    No, just that the showing of a polemic that pretends to be truthful (when it quite clearly isn’t), is against NZ/s broadcasting standards. Robust argument is one thing (and I’m very happy to support it), lying about the facts in order to make an argument is just mendacious. That’s why we have standards…

    And before you mention Big Al, it’s worth noting that AIT is presented as personal opinion, but includes no outright lies. Might be a bit dramatic in places, but it gets the science just about right. In comparison, Swindle is a farrago of nonsense.

    You’ll enjoy it, BP. But you won’t learn anything.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. Gerrit :

    Would it be to much to expect people to make up their own minds?

    Reminds me of Woody Allen’s definition of media balance : fifteen minutes for Hitler, fifteen minutes for the Jews.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. >>You’ll enjoy it, BP

    I’ve seen it. The interweb, the interweb….

    >>includes no outright lies

    Is that another way of describing “at least eleven material falsehoods”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. StephenR,

    “Prime’s responsibility to ensure reasonable accuracy in the stuff it broadcasts. TGGWS contains errors of fact and outright distortions that have been pointed out to the film’s makers but remain unaddressed in the version to be shown here .?

    Means nothing?”

    Well show me and I will make up my own mind.

    Or dont you trust me to make my own decisions. You want to censor what I see?

    Same goes for Alistair.

    Show both and I will stack up the Al Gore rethoric against the TGWWS ones.

    Hey we are all grown ups here. We can make a decision. Might not be the one you want but maybe it might be the one you do want.

    Let me make up my own mind thanks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. Cant let this go as it rankles me somewhat

    ” Because the ’swindle’ mockumentary has been found to base its arguments on factually incorrect claims. You can’t rely on every person watching a programme to check the accuracy of the claims, thus the average viewer can’t make a reasonable comparison.”

    That is Kahikatea opinion and I guess says, we need a propaganda ministry to make sure that only the “truth” is out there.

    Means whomever controls the propaganda ministry controls the “truth”.

    As BOHenry says, lets have robust debate. But you cannot get that without showing both doco in the same light.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. “A judge in Britain’s High Court has ruled that Gore’s apocalyptic movie on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, should come with a warning that it promotes “partisan political views” and is riddled with errors.”

    tinyurl.com/2a9j45

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. “5b Broadcasters should refrain from broadcasting material which is misleading or unnecessarily alarms viewers.”

    So how come Parliament is allowed to be broadcast then? And the “money” market segment of the news?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. has anyone on this thread ever supported the notion that lawsuits provide an ideal way to expose the truth or falsity of global warming claims?

    ***
    you can’t hope to simply stack up the rhetorics next to each other & judge which seems truest. the issue is about various things claimed to be facts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. “A judge in Britain’s High Court has ruled that Gore’s apocalyptic movie on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, should come with a warning that it promotes “partisan political views? and is riddled with errors.?

    everybody here would be familiar with the case & the judge’s findings & the commentary & spin put upon them by both sides afterwards, but in case it needs saying, the judge’s wording was not as sensational as the quote here seems to imply – the quote is taken from an opinion piece btw & carries no greater weight than if bluepeter had simply said it himself

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. Will they note that several of the scientists whose opinions are misrepresented in the piece are suing the stupid pr!ck who made it?

    One can only hope.

    As for Junk Science BB….

    JunkScience.org is run by Steven Milloy, who believes or claims to believe:

    1….that environmentalists (Rachel Carson, et al.) who pushed for a ban on DDT are responsible for the deaths of 97 million people of malaria.

    The problem with this is that DDT is now and has always been legal in most areas of the world with endemic malaria. Moreover, Rachel Carson was EXACTLY correct in her indictment of its indiscriminate use on fields of produce.

    http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8045/8045.pdf
    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2007/07/malaria/fink
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

    2. …the scientific link between cholofluorocarbons (CFCs) and the seasonal decrease in stratospheric ozone over the polar regions is not settled. He seems to think it is all a government plot.

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2006/ozone_asst
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

    3. ,,, the risks from “second-hand smoke” (passive smoking) are so negligible that smoking should not be banned in workplaces and restaurants. The statistical basis – The relative risk of contracting cancer from passive smoking is between 1.2 and 2.0, as opposed to the relative risk of lung cancer from actually smoking, which for men is fully 23 times what it is for those who do not smoke.

    … it seems negligible… except the annual deaths from this level of relative risk are 53,000 deaths just in the US, many of them children.

    Steve Milloy knows but he doesn’t care. It’s just politics.

    http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

    4. Milloy has worked as a registered lobbyist for the EOP Group ( the American Crop Pesticide Association), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Fort Howard Corp (paper), the National Mining Association, Monsanto, and the International Food Additives Council.

    5. Milloy seldom misses an opportunity to question the science that underlies the debate, for which he was well-paid by ExxonMobil. His close ties to the petroleum industry are very well documented.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

    Why should anybody take his $500,000 reward seriously? He will determine the winner at his sole discretion? ! !

    Frog could easily set up a 50 million dollar reward for some proposition on the same basis. I could. YOU could. It is totally meaningless. Milloy is one of those folks who simply need to have things “explained” to them the hard way.

    He doesn’t care what happens to the environment or to other people as a result of his libertarian ideological crusade, nor what happens to the institutions of science, We might have actual government regulations and that’s worse than destroying the planet. Unlike a real Libertarian his regard for OTHER people’s rights and the rights of people yet to be born, is nonexistent. He is quite happy to steal from anyone as long as they can’t prosecute his sorry butt.. He’ll be long dead… he doesn’t care.

    That is NOT a Libertarian philosophy… that is pseudo-libertarianism being used as an excuse for naked greed.

    (— Much shortened but with thanks to Loren Cobb in another forum)

    As for airing this piece of drivel, I would be happy to allow it to be aired if it were done properly, with interruptions at every erroneous claim and scientifically misleading assertion, so that it would be corrected. The first interruption would come (I remember clearly) less than 30 seconds into the piece and the 20th would arrive within the first 3 minutes. It is an ABORTION of truth and should not be permitted without a full and clear explanation… IN REAL TIME. People forget just how bad it is and was. The fact that the guy is being sued by at least one of the scientists he quotes out of context should be a clue. Much like the Heartland foundations 500 scientists… it is a lie. It is a BLATANT lie. Broadcasting it is a mistake.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. I am happy to have people thinking. I am not happy if they are getting only one side and I am not happy if someone who is LYING BLATANTLY is getting “equal time” The media has to present enough information that the lies are exposed for what they are… and has to present it AT THE POINT of the deception… not after 23 additional lies and 4 commercial breaks.

    15 minutes for Hitler and 15 minutes for the Jews…. EXACTLY.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. Thanks for the link, BP. Not very helpful, as others have suggested. Perhaps you should review this thread at Deltoid, and remind yourself that the judge actually said:

    “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”

    The contrast with Swindle could not be greater.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. Hopefully it will spark a debate on the topic of AGW, after years of one-sided propaganda from the warmists.

    One documentary that dares to suggest an alternate view, and you lot want it shut down? One wonders why the prospect frightens you so? Wouldn’t those confident of the warmist view just laugh it off?

    BTW, unlike Gore, the GWS has corrected misinformation:

    “Following criticism from scientists the film has been changed since it was first broadcast on Channel 4. One graph had its time axis relabelled, the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans was removed, and following objections about how his interview had been used, the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed for the international and DVD releases of the programme.”

    Gore still refuses to ask many questions on his docudrama, let alone alter the contents.

    How telling….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. >>You really do live in an alternate universe, don’t you

    The media always takes the warmist position. Has done for years. How can you possibly miss this fact? Each time a block of ice falls, we get a shot of said ice, and a shot of a polar bear, preferably a lone polar bear, thrown in for good measure.

    There is no discussion, whatsoever, about other factors which might be causing this.

    Pure propaganda…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. Toad

    No, but I know where you’re going with it.

    I think any documentary on the topic would be laughable, and perhaps of interest only to see how wacky some religious people can be, but I would fight for their right to show it.

    Therein lies the difference, methinks….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. Would you fight for their right to present their ‘facts’ though? Plenty of creationists out there who present their views as science, and that their ‘real’ science is ‘being suppressed by secularists’.

    e.g. ‘Contrary to mainstream opinion, x proves that the earth is about 6,000 years old, and the evolutionists can’t fill certain gaps in the fossil record’.

    They would be able to state that as FACT, and there wouldn’t be a problem with that? Yes, most would regard them as wacky, but a number would start having doubts, despite the illegitimacy of the ‘science’ that was used.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. I would support the right of creationists to make and show documentaries that reach wacky conclusions, but not if they base those conclusions on false data or a misrepresentation of the views of individual scientists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. Kahikatea,

    “but not if they base those conclusions on false data or a misrepresentation of the views of individual scientists.”

    And therin lies your problem. You want a body set up (Ministry of Propaganda – MOP for short) to scrutinise every doco to make sure it is based on true date and a true representation of the contributors to the doco.

    Problem will be who checks to make sure that the MOP’s have got it right.

    Does every doco maker have to submit before broadcasting?

    No, best bet is to let the individuals who are viewing the doco make their own conclusions.

    Talk about doco’s, did anyone see that doco (Sky Doco channel) about socialist visitors from around the world on a “long march” visit to North Korea (Keith Locke was not invited?).

    Pretty scary in the end where the group leader actually broke into peoples hotel room to steal their video tapes, digital cameras cards, computers hard drives, etc to make sure their “lies” about North Korea did not go home with them. And these were strong anti-capititalist, anti-american, anti-corporate, anti-globalisation activists as well!

    One guy had to sign a “confession” before he was allowed to leave!!

    Well I would rather have a few erronious and contentious doco’s broadcast (be it AL Gores marketing department effort or the TGWWS one) then have to live in the “workers paradise” that is North Korea.

    That North Korean doco will be shown on Prime as well pretty soon (funniest scene was the visitors standing by the 38th parallel zone shouting “yankees go home”. Funniest ever.

    Will all socialist also demand that this doco not be shown as it shows the North Korea “workers paradise” in a very bad light.
    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. Gerrit Says:
    May 28th, 2008 at 10:54 am

    > Kahikatea,

    > “but not if they base those conclusions on false data or a misrepresentation of the views of individual scientists.?

    > And therin lies your problem. You want a body set up (Ministry of Propaganda – MOP for short) to scrutinise every doco to make sure it is based on true date and a true representation of the contributors to the doco.

    A more logical way of doing it s through the court system. We already rely on the justice system to determine the facts in civil and criminal law cases, and they already have the requisite statutory independence.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. kahikatea

    You best have a word to Al then, because his data shows the sea level rising by 20ft, the ocean conveyor shutting down, and Hurricane Katrina being the result of AGW. Which is, of course, unsubstantiated nonsense.

    But he’s fighting the good fight, eh, so we’ll give him a pass ;) And a Nobel Peace Prize.

    I prefer to believe the truth will out, whatever that may be. Same goes with the loopy Christians….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. I think he had 9 mistakes http://tinyurl.com/yuolen

    But saying the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans (not very provable), does not make the claim that ‘Lots of CO2 = warming and there will be various unfortunate consequences depending on action taken’ wrong.

    The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge ruled that this was “distinctly alarmist”. The sea level WILL rise by 20 feet if all of that melts, but certainly NOT in the near future. I don’t believe that constitutes a scientific error, but an silly use of the worst case scenario.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. Kaikatea,

    The court ruling would have to be made before the doco is shown .

    Otherwise you are in the situation where “You can’t rely on every person watching a programme to check the accuracy of the claims, thus the average viewer can’t make a reasonable comparison” (your quote by the way).

    So the courts will become the MOP. Able to select waht we see and what we are too dumb (we cant make a reasonable comparison!).

    Sorry, we are not dumb. We do not need the courts or the MOP to tell us what to see and what conclusions we might draw.

    No the best bet is to show the doco in full and then publish a full rebuttal. No doubt this has been done where the doco has been shown overseas and is fully documented (so you dont even have to do any research).

    A far reaching effect of blocking doco will be to force them underground. So you will not even know what the dumb people are watching.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  38. best I weigh in here…

    * eight of the interviewees are closely associated with no less than 30 Exxon-funded conservative think tanks. Check out my handy map:
    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831

    * and yes, two of them complained – Carl Wunsch got his interview removed altogether, leaving us with NO real climate scientists, despite the claim at the beginning that they were “leading” climate scientists.

    * The film received 246 complaints to the UK b.casting watchdog, Ofcom, which is expected to rule soon. One of those was a massive tome, peer reviewed by some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

    * The Prime debate (already recorded but will look live to you) did NOT cover the inaccuracies, pretty much focussing on climate science only – it will not provide the balance needed. Whether Prime covers all of the mistakes and covers itself remains to be seen.

    * for a good summary of SOME of the mistakes in it (and for pure entertainment), check out ABC’s Tony Jones interviewing the filmmaker, Wag TV’s Martin Durkin:
    here: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831
    and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8

    * Durkin has a history of these sort of docos, causing Channel 4 to apologise at least once for this. Check out this week’s Listener for some great quotes from David Puttnam (Channel 4 board chair) expressing regrets that they ever ran the thing.

    * for a more scientific overview of many of the mistakes, this Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Bulletin article is good: http://www.aussmc.org/documents/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION.pdf

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. >>The court ruling would have to be made before the doco is shown

    And for each episode of the News.

    Meanwhile, the people will be watching whatever we like. On the internet.
    A useful tool which the socialists and thought police can’t control, thankfully.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. You’ve not heard of the ‘Great Firewall of China’ then, or the police who ‘patrol’ the internet there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  41. Seems like the only problem then is the existence of a broadcasting code (as mentioned by frog earlier).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  42. 1. Of the 10 interviewees on the Swindle, eight of them are associated with no less than 30 Exxon funded US think tanks (including Heartland, which as we all know funds our own NZCSC to fly round the world spouting climate denial).

    2. Of the 13 so-called “climate scientists” interviewed, only two were actual bone fide climate scientists. One of them, Carl Wunsch, had his interview removed and the other also complained.

    3. for high entertainment, and a view of some of the mistakes, it’s well worth watching the ABC’s Tony Jones interview with filmmaker Wag TV’s Martin Durkin.
    Part I
    Part II

    4. For a good summary of SOME of the mistakes, check out the
    Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

    5. I did take part in the Prime debate (which was filmed “as live”), but, despite being told otherwise, I did not get an opportunity to talk about any of the above. Prime will have to do a hell of a lot more to achieve the balance required to meet BSA standards. Shame they don’t have a Tony Jones to do a similar Durkin interview. We shall see.

    6. One wonders at the coincidence of such a doco appearing on NZ television, right in the middle of the ETS going through the House. I understand that in Australia, it was sceptics on the board of ABC who forced the programme’s airing.

    7. Have a look at this week’s Listener – Sarah Barnett has done a good job in Ecologic about the problems – and has a great quote from Channel 4 chair David Puttnam regretting the day the channel aired this “juvenile” programme.

    8. UK watchdog Ofcom is due to rule sometime in the next month. There were 246 complaints, one of them a huge tome, peer reviewed by some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. sorry, mistake in first para – there were about 16 interviewees, not 10.

    One of them, Patrick Moore, they called a “co-founder of Greenpeace” – erm, no, he wasn’t.

    He was at GP in the very early days but left about 30 years ago and is a paid lobbyist for the nuclear and forestry industries.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  44. Cindy

    Why are you so scared? If the message is garbage, then the message won’t hold up to close scrutiny.

    Now, which message could I be referring to….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. erm, scared?

    where on earth did you get that from?

    Sure of facts: yes.
    Amazed that Prime is showing it: yes.
    Sure it won’t stand up: yes
    pretty convinced Prime will have to face the BSA: yes.

    but scared? that’s just weird.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. The use of state control to manage the perceptions of the people, most of whom will not be watching, is weird.

    I sense fear is the root cause….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. >>You’ve not heard of the ‘Great Firewall of China’ then, or the police who ‘patrol’ the internet there.

    The inevitable consequence of socialism. A path that many here seem happy to walk down, starting with restricting the screening of documentaries they do not agree with, under the guise of “seeking truth”.
    Nonsense. As usual, it’s the left try to shut down debate because they are scared the great unwashed would have this conversation.

    They’re all a bit old fashioned, however.

    youtube.com/watch?v=2GaFrUFCVQg

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. I dunno…socialism has been around a HELL of a lot longer than the PRC, don’t know why or how they made the leap to totalitarianism so quickly though.

    The ‘left’ are also accused of trying to shut down the evolution ‘debate’…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. >>stop the UK distribution to schools of An Inconvenient Truth

    I disagree with his action.

    However, when it comes to schools, I think an argument can be made to
    regulate curriculum, so as children are taught to separate science from psuedo-science, especially if they have had little or no exposure to either concept. I’d be in favour of both films being shown, and in the context of a rational scientific debate. I’d be uncomfortable with either film being shown and held up as an example of objective fact.

    I’m not sure the same restriction applies to adults.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  50. Yeah I think the judge ordered ‘teaching notes’ to accompany AIT, which is fair enough.

    I would love to have been taught more about the scientific method when I was in school…as it stands i’ve only learned about it from reading about evolution and climate change debates. I spose peer review should be explained too…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  51. BP:

    so let’s see – you disagree with the action, but you’re happy to go round quoting the judgment (well, actually misquoting it, but that’s a differnt argument).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  52. I was making the point the documentary was riddled with errors.

    The errors are there regardless, as anyone can see.

    A court judge also decided it contained errors.

    Lets not forget, the GWS has been altered following criticism regarding facts. Gores film has not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  53. I do wonder if Swindle really has gotten rid of its errors…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  54. In his judgment, the judge talked of “errors” (ie quoting the applicant saying they were, but not necessarily agreeing).

    He said of AIT: “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”

    He ordered teaching aids, but didn’t uphold the application to stop it from being distributed.

    See Deltoid’s discussion of it.

    and StephenR: no, Swindle hasn’t gotten rid of its errors. I’ve seen a copy of the version Prime will screen and, while about 6 minutes have been shaved off (Wunsch interview) and titles for some of the interviewees changed to reflect their true rather than claimed status, it’s still riddled.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  55. So I’m not sure what we’re arguing?

    Gores error ridden, polemic docudrama can be viewed by anyone who enjoys a laugh, as can the GGWS.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  56. The difference that you seem to be unable to appreciate is that Gore got his facts right, while Durkin deliberately eschews the use of facts in order to present his case. You seem to want to defend his right to lie to pursue his cause.

    Is that correct, BP? You are defending his right to lie?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  57. No, Henry.

    Gore didn’t get some of his facts right.

    Durkin didn’t get some of his facts right.

    Overall, both documentaries support their own truth. Truthiness is perhaps a more apt term….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  58. Actually I don’t see one “fact” that Durkin DID get right – apart from C02 being only 3% of global warming gases, but then he went on to say that that meant C02 couldn’t be a climate forcing agent, so that one went down the pan too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  59. If the message is garbage, then the message won’t hold up to close scrutiny.

    what close scrutiny?
    that’s all we’re calling for, that the tv station airs enough close scrutiny for viewers to make informed decision

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  60. Sorry BP… Gore DID get his “FACTS” right. When he said if X melts then the sea level goes up Y it is factual. When he says Katrina MAY be a result of warming that’s not a statement of fact. If he has any problems it is with the way SOME people put words in his mouth, as they have been doing since he first ran for President. I have never seen such a group of liars as has been produced by the pseudo-libertarian fringe of dittoheads that has basically turned the internet into a free-fire, truth-optional zone.

    I may watch this if it is broadcast, just so I can audit it and provide detailed feedback. I only have about 100 other things to do that would be more useful to me. I will provide myself with a fresh notebook as I do expect this to run to many pages given the observed rate of error in the initial few minutes.

    One of the problems with the right-wing and with the media is that they seem able to “equate” the two presentations. They aren’t comparable in terms of truth value. It is likely that neither should be regarded as a “documentary” in the usual sense. With a documentary there is a truth that is able to be documented. In this case the only truth that can be documented is the actual opinions and theories of the actual scientists who do the research.

    That’s OK… but if so Gore’s should have lasted about a month or two for everyone to say their piece and Durkin had to shorten his already.

    So I wouldn’t call either one a “documentary” in the usual sense.

    I also wouldn’t permit any version of Durkin’s work to be presented without in-line real-time rebuttal. Could do the same thing with Gore’s piece to point out the places where the weasel words are… for the benefit of those who forget that they are there or that they are listening to a politician.

    Pinning a professional pollie about something he/she says is a lot like nailing a jellyfish to a tree.

    If, May, Could be…. what caused some specific event is impossible to nail down…

    …but AGW is about something that is real and coming soon to a planet near you.

    If you think I am “afraid” of what an idiot like Durkin says you’ve got your facts wrong.

    Try harder.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  61. Stephen: Exactly! Do check out the ABC interview I linked to above – they interview an Australian scientist using the Ebola virus in a similar example to yours with cyanide. And it’s a great interview.

    This “it’s only a tiny bit of greenhouse gas” is typical of most of the arguments in the Swindle.

    and whilst I’m here, I now have the Channel 4 Chairman Lord Puttnam’s quote:

    “I wish [the swindle] hadn’t happened. My job is chairing the climate committee in Parliament and it’s not helpful. It’s the kind of slightly juvenile thing that happens when you take your eye off the ball.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  62. My, my.

    The GGWS must really be onto something if it produces this much of a flap! It’s like screening South Park to a bunch of Christian fundamentalists and hoping for a balanced response.

    Gore’s sci-fi epic was the single event that pushed me firmly into the skeptical camp. I watched it at 30,000 feet. In Business Class. Al flies private, and who can blame him?

    Not me.

    Ah, the world of entertainment….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  63. Are you surprised that people get upset when Swindle says in its first minute words to the effect that “everything you’ve been told about climate change is a lie”?

    So, BP, stop beating around the bush. Are you defending Durkin’s right to lie?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  64. Sorry BP… If Durkin is smarter as the IPCC , NASA and the rest of the scientific community then he can be right… otherwise he is dead wrong and taking the rest of the world with him into a climate death spiral. That doesn’t even cover the risk-management end of things…

    Maybe I should wait and see if he’s really that smart… ?

    No.. I don’t think so.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  65. bjchip Says:
    May 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    > Sorry BP… Gore DID get his “FACTS? right.

    he did make one mistake that I’m aware of. He said that Tuvalu had flooded and the people of Tuvalu had to flee to New Zealand. Tuvalu has not flooded yet. It’s not fundamental to his point, but it is an error.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  66. Yes… it only floods in the storms… and while they seem to be more numerous and worse that, like Kilimanjaro is an effect that can be variously attributed, not simply to warming. Mea Culpa… I should have remembered that. I simply focus too tightly on science instead of the side-remarks.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  67. >>a climate death spiral

    I understand that’s the title of Gore’s sequel….. :)

    >>Are you defending Durkin’s right to lie

    No. But I defend his right to tell his version of the truthiness….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  68. I defend his right to tell his version of the truthiness

    Truthiness, as originally defined by Stephen Colbert: “We’re not talking about truth, we’re talking about something that seems like truth—the truth we want to exist.?

    What you’re effectively saying that there is no truth “out there” – no objective, observed reality. You can call black white and expect us to defend your right to do so.

    Sorry, BP, life’s not like that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  69. Without getting into a metaphysical debate about the nature of objective reality, we must remember we’re talking about media.

    It’s all opinion.

    The choice of camera angle is an opinion. The edit points are an opinion. The direction is opinion. It can only ever be opinion.

    The opinion should, of course, be based on fact. If Gore or Durkin’s opinions stray too far from the facts, then they devalue their own arguments.

    But I will decide that for myself. Not some political committee.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  70. It’s all opinion.

    Nonsense. Durkin makes deliberate mistakes in pursuit of his argument. That is not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact, as you might discover if you looked somewhere other than the echo-chamber of truthiness that comprises the sites espousing the “sceptic” viewpoint.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  71. blue peter got ripped apart and tried to retreat into metaphysics….

    peter – it is ok to admit when your stance is not looking like it once did. you are not the film maker – its not a case of anyone that disagrees with al gore has to defend the swindle ‘doco’

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  72. Trees

    The Al Gore disaster flick and the Swindle Doco share much in common

    Why anyone would want to silence either is beyond me. They both provide light entertainment.

    Which, if you were paying attention, is what this thread is really all about. Censorship.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  73. So, the usual. Climate scientists think it’s the usual oilco bollocks, and people who aren’t climate scientists can be found that have heard somewhere that solving problems is easier if you pretend they don’t exist, and don’t want to listen to all those egg-heads anyway.

    Marvelous. You’d think the storm-surge/tsunami guy would take offense if a marine biologist told him how wrong he was about storm surges, eh, what with them being rather unaccustomed to his particular field of knowledge.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  74. BP

    Just as you have no right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre, you have no right to reassure everyone that all is well when the theatre is on fire. This IS about rights… just not the ones (yours) you seem to think about to the exclusion of all else.

    Durkin is culpably dishonest. If I had a few bucks to spare and the time, I’d have him in court here for the lies in his film. I reckon he’d not do as well as AIT did.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  75. Youre not alone BP,

    Because you are right it is about censorship.

    My comment to Kahikatea way up the list somewhere was about this all along. First we have the EFA, now we have an attempt at censorship in what maybe shown on TV.

    Mind you with a the state sponsored television advertisements on TV (dont drink, dont smoke, dont speed, etc) all we need is state censorship on anything that might be controversial and we might as well go call New Zealand “the workers paradise of the long white cloud.”

    Anyone else see that doco on North Korea? Try and catch it when it is on Free to Air (probalby on Prime unless Keith Locke want to ban that doco as well)

    My question remains. Who will “authorise” the showing of any doco and underwhat guidelines will they sensor the showing of any doco.

    Who will sit on this erstwhile body? and wil it be a democratically elected body or a Ministry of Propoganda appointment?

    I’m actually looking forward to BOHenry’s complaint to (and frogs reporting off the complaint) to the BSA. BJ are you going to complain as well? Somehow I dont think a complaint will be laid.

    My understanding is that a complaint can only be generated after a show has been aired, not before. So that the great unwashed can see the doco and make up their own minds. Fantastic as that is how a democracy should work.

    People making up their own minds.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  76. Do I detect a sense of panic among the hard left as the wheels start to fall off the climate change con?

    Quick..better find another reason/excuse to destroy capitalism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  77. Gerrit

    You are right about censorship, it seems that the Greens are not willing to let anybody speak out against climate change.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  78. The right to lie would seem like the point of this thread, and I don’t think anyone said they want to stop it from being shown either. Show it, sure, and the debate was a good idea, but it really should have been about the film, not climate science in general.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  79. >>no right to reassure everyone that all is well when the theatre is on fire.

    But you don’t get it, BJ. You’re convinced the theater is on fire, but what you’re smelling might be a teenager sneaking a cigarette in aisle three.

    The green movement has had the floor for years, and one documentary appears opposing their one-sided view, and their knee jerk response is “how can we prevent people seeing it”?

    Please spare me the nonsense about “lies” being the basis for your actions. If that were the case, why aren’t you regularly laying complaints about Sensing Murder, Sunday, and The Inconvenient Truthiness?

    I’ve seen the GGWS. Like Gores film, it contains inaccuracies, but the argument is sound. There is enough doubt to suggest that AGW is a con.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  80. There is enough doubt to suggest that AGW is a con.

    And with one simple sentence, BP exits the real world and heads off into lala land.

    Have fun BP.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  81. What a clever argument, Henry.

    As I’ve often stated before, I am in no rush to take sides, and remain skeptical. It is you who has made a leap of faith.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  82. As I’ve often stated before, I am in no rush to take sides, and remain skeptical. It is you who has made a leap of faith.

    [Falls about laughing]

    That’s a leap of faith based on 150 years of physics, and decades of work by thousands of scientists.

    What have you got? Martin Durkin, a bunch of US libertarian thinktanks, and some ageing curmudgeons. Lala Land. I hope you have fun there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  83. You started strong, but now your “arguments” are just getting pathetic :)

    Since when does the majority rule in science?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  84. And someone say something about An Inconvenient Truth being ‘full of errors’ or something, I dare yuz!

    It’s full of errors. 9, 35 or 120, depending on who you talk to. I realise the warmists have no interest in the science but, well, you asked. :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  85. Basically I was going on what that judge in the UK ruled on the lawsuit that laid out alleged ‘errors’, which there certainly were – I see it as something of a definitive case, as judicial rulings tend to be. I feel that the small errors don’t detract from Gore’s main point, which is that humans have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of the earth’s climate.

    Incidentally I haven’t even seen it, but it sounds snazzy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  86. I know I sound snarky, but instead of “working, publishing climate scientists” I ‘spose you would substitute ‘warmists’?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  87. We already are the workers paradise of the long white cloud Gerrit.

    I have spoken to several people who have been told by employees from TVNZ that several subjects are totally taboo, and are not to be spoken about in any way or form.

    They will not be addressed or investigated and will not be televised. I put it to you that that is censure in it’s purest form.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  88. Yeah, let us in on the conspiracy – hopefully Paris Hilton is one of the subjects!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  89. It will be something to do with “the people of the land” I’m sure….

    And I can’t recall them ever reporting on AGW being anything other than established fact…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  90. This warmist would say that it’s hard to report on relevant scientific papers that don’t exist.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  91. Heh heh, Stephen. Doesn’t help if they’ve got their eyes closed, of course.

    What’s Green And Goes Pop?

    “But a 15-year lull is not merely significant in political terms. It also needs to be set against the fact that the warming which caused the frenzy lasted only 25 years. From 1875 to 1975 internationally accepted records suggest that the average global temperature rose by a total of just 0.2ºC. It was only the 0.5ºC rise recorded in the fourth quarter of the last century that produced the hysteria that has sparked this gold rush among green entrepreneurs and investors.

    There may well be a green business opportunity. But my advice to would-be investors is this: make sure you get out before the bubble bursts. “

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  92. Let me start by saying that after years of being a GW “believer” I have recently made the choice to return to sitting on the fence on that one.
    As I have told here before I live sustainably and I will continue to do so but I get the feeling we are being told a lot and shown a little on many subjects.

    Some of the things not being discussed on NZTV is the many blatant lies that led to the war in Iraq or the weapons that are used. Other than embedded journalists no real news comes from either Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Nothing is mentioned about the tent camps around big American cities were people who lost their house in the sub prime market crash and job loss through outsourcing now have to live in circumstances reminiscent of third world countries.

    In every country in Europe and countries like Japan there have been documentaries about the events of 911. Now whether you wholeheartedly embrace the official conspiracy theory or whether you question the official theory doesn’t it strike you as strange that employees who would like some of these documentaries have been told by the director that this will never happen. Why if the case is so clear cut then why can’t we watch these documentaries, especially since two kiwi’s died in the attacks and we are engaged in the war in Afghanistan because of these attacks. For almost 7 years young New Zealand men are away from their families and have to risk their lives to “fight terrorism”.
    You lot argue that views opposed to the prevailing theories etc. should be able to be viewed on our mainstream TV senders, I subscribe to that.
    Even if most of you would just watch these documentaries to have good laugh about “conspiracy nuts” let’s have out with them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  93. Yes, news broadcasting in NZ is a sad joke.

    And with BS like the BS, and the thought police who use it, it’s hardly surprising. Who gives a $#%^ if documentaries offend people – it should be their JOB to offend all of the people, some of the time.

    I prefer YouTube.

    Tent Cities: youtube.com/watch?v=CnnOOo6tRs8

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  94. So you somehow missed the ‘global warming stops til 2015′ mini frenzy when that study came out BP??? ‘eyes closed’ my arse!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  95. I’m intrigued at the apparent “need” of Global Warming deniers on frogblog to believe that “business as usual”, presumably in terms of their sought after (affluent) lifestyles, and desire for (exponential?) “growth” etc etc can continue without serious restraint.

    Human history, archaeology etc shows us examples what has happened in the past to human societies on this Planet who did not ADAPT their lifestyles to suit changing conditions, at a more local level. Sometimes in such places their precious “money” is found lying around, discarded …

    Will we humans leave similar evidence for the descendants of those few that survive such a catastrophe, or will we reorganize and adapt our societies to suit the changing climate on our beautiful but demonstrably finite Planet?

    It really is up to you of the younger generation.

    The Greens are onto it at a personal level and at a collective level (and many of us have been living so for decades now).

    I often wonder what it will take before the deniers realize that they do need to take heed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  96. Bluepeter,
    Yes, news broadcasting in NZ is a sad joke.

    And with BS like the BS, and the thought police who use it, it’s hardly surprising. Who gives a $#%^ if documentaries offend people – it should be their JOB to offend all of the people, some of the time.

    Was that a response to my comment?
    Thanks for the link.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  97. >>I often wonder what it will take before the deniers realize that they do need to take heed.

    I often wonder what it will take for the warmists to realise that the jury remains out.

    “A new framework is needed – less presumptive, more inclusive, more watertight professionally, and more attuned to the huge uncertainties that remain. Where so much remains uncertain and unsettled, policies should be evolutionary and adaptive, rather than presumptive; and their evolution should be linked to a process of inquiry and review which is more thorough, balanced, open and objective than is now the case.”

    tinyurl.com/5mjjdm

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  98. I often wonder what it will take for the warmists to realise that the jury remains out.

    It does – in Lala Land.

    Back here in the real world every major scientific organisation, including our own Royal Society accepts we are facing a huge problem. When they change their tune, I’ll change mine.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  99. BP,

    I think that approach to the transformation of our economy to a more efficient and environmentally benign one should be what the article recommends anyway as the current approached applied by the Greens has been if anything counterproductive as the reaction to the ETS and the Green Party’s general reputation in the business community demonstrates.

    http://idealog.co.nz/magazine/january-february-2008/features/who-you-callin-green

    An adaptive, distributed, and cooperative approach would be more productive and effective as it would avoid the alienation of people whose cooperation is required to ensure that our aims are achieved.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  100. My prefered scenario for that transformation to take place is this and I’m hoping to start working on it soon. I’m actually in the right place to do so where I’m working.

    “Hyper Green” — Distributed and Proactionary: a world in which things get weird. Distributed decisions and ad-hoc collaboration dominate, largely in the development and deployment of potentially transformative technologies and models. This world embraces experimentation and iterated design, albeit not universally; this scenario is likely to include communities and nations that see themselves as disenfranchised and angry. Micro-models and open source platforms thrive here, too, but are as likely to be micro-ecosystem engineering and open source nanotechnology as micro-finance and open source architecture. States and large corporations aren’t gone, but find it increasingly hard to keep up. One form of this scenario would end with an open source guerilla movement getting its hands on a knowledge-enabled weapon of mass destruction; another form of this scenario is the “Teaching the World to Sing” story from my Earth Day Essay.”
    http://www.openthefuture.com/2007/11/green_tomorrows_the_scenarios.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  101. “Hyper Green? — Distributed and Proactionary: a world in which things get weird. Distributed decisions and ad-hoc collaboration dominate, largely in the development and deployment of potentially transformative technologies and models. This world embraces experimentation and iterated design, albeit not universally; this scenario is likely to include communities and nations that see themselves as disenfranchised and angry. Micro-models and open source platforms thrive here, too, but are as likely to be micro-ecosystem engineering and open source nanotechnology as micro-finance and open source architecture. States and large corporations aren’t gone, but find it increasingly hard to keep up. One form of this scenario would end with an open source guerilla movement getting its hands on a knowledge-enabled weapon of mass destruction; another form of this scenario is the “Teaching the World to Sing? story from my Earth Day Essay.?

    What. A load. Of horse shit.

    Congratulations on including every last collectivist in-word for the past thirty years while at the same time managing to say absolutely nothing.

    Surely this is a piss take. Or is this what passes for intelligence at the Environment Ministry these days?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  102. eredwen,

    “I often wonder what it will take before the deniers realize that they do need to take heed.”

    This will happen when warmists look at all the fact, some which conflict with their inconveneint truth.

    For example I know it is getting warmer by personel recollection. 45 years ago in winter Auckland we used to walk to school and break the ice in puddles, get the milk in from the letterbox with a frozen column of milk standing up out of the glass bottle (with the silver cap on top of the column).

    Now in Auckland a cold winters day is likely to just leave a light frosting on the grass. I can virtually grow tomatoes year round. We are getting sub tropical with a distinct wet and dry season.

    So yes warming is happening so call me a warmist.

    Due to global warming I’m told that about 20% of the greenland ice has melted causing the oceans to rise.

    When I launch my boat or kayak at my local ramp (as I have done for 45 years) what do I see? The high tide mark is still at the same level it has been since I launched my first boat.

    So yes, Global warming causing ocean levels to rise is a con. Call me a denier.

    And that is the problem, we can see and experience some of the global climate variations, but we can also notice that other claimed changes are clearly wrong.

    That is why I’m a skeptic, conflicting information.

    Another reason to be highly skeptical is that the money markets are forcasting 100Billion dollar annual PROFITS for carbon trading.

    This comment from

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/energy-desks-betting-big-future/story.aspx?guid=%7BD81A7B6C-E9F7-4896-B704-75881E5D2392%7D

    says it all — LONDON (MarketWatch) — The global carbon-trading market is doubling in size every year, putting it on course to become one of the biggest earners for energy desks and raising the question of whether emissions trading is environmentally effective or just another revenue stream for investment banks.
    More than $40 billion of carbon-dioxide permits will be traded this year — small fry compared to oil or other energy markets. But almost everyone agrees it won’t stay that way for long.
    “Conservatively, we think it’s going to be worth $3 trillion,” said Peter Fusaro, chairman of Global Change Associates, an energy consulting group. —

    Proponents (Al Gore) wishing to profit from this alarmist point of view are going to trade carbon credits.

    Meaning the Kyoto protical is nothing more then a capitalistic manipulation. It will do absolutely nothing to reduce carbon emmisions.

    With the Greens buying into emmision taxation and carbon credits they are actually buying into the biggest capitalistic scam going. Highly ironic for a socialist party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  103. if a great many carbon credits are issued that is a sign of the success of the scheme – a great many people are cashing in on the demand for carbon sinks by providing them.

    I often wonder what it will take for the warmists to realise that the jury remains out.

    most of the warmingistas would realize that there is room for doubt, just not room for complacency

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  104. Free speech only for the arguments you like, Frog? Good one.

    I don’t know what you’re doing pointing to terms like “unnecessarily alarms viewers” in the legislation. Prime’s Sunday program is saying ignore the alarmists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  105. Very enlightening so far.
    Your dog whistle about this programme reminds me of all the nutty god botherers that made a fuss about the passion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  106. I thought “nutty god botherers” were fans of ‘Passion’…?

    The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society weren’t too happy with ‘Swindle’ either… http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfxg.html

    Didn’t see either, wish I could’ve seen the debate though!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  107. From NotPC….

    Swindle feedback

    “Here’s scientist Vincent Gray’s assessment of The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened last night on Prime.

    “First: the programme itself is much improved,” says Dr Gray of NZ’s Climate Science Coalition. “All the objections to the original programme have been cleaned up. [Crawler Carl Wunsch, for example] who claimed he was railroaded into contributing, has gone… This version [which was quite a bit shorter that the original - Ed.] should replace the one already circulated whenever possible.”

    I have to pause here to note Eric Young’s simpering disclaimer at the start of the show — “Prime TV and Prime News wash our hands of this while thing” he almost said, before announcing that Swindle’s maker Martin Durkin doesn’t debate with warmists so the panel discussion later didn’t include hime [a lie, as it happens; it's Warmist-in-Chief Al Bore who doesn't debate]. Anyway, back to Dr Gray’s review:

    Then, to the discussion. In Australia they had a fanatically biased interviewer [Tony Jones] grilling poor Martin Durkin, who had difficulty standing up to him. Here, it was almost fair. Only two scientists to our one. But we won out on the non-scientists. Leighton Smith was the most experienced broadcaster present and he made most of the telling points. His best one was when he exposed the lie that very few scientists were critical of global warming theory. The two IPCC scientists ganged up to interrupt as soon as valid points were made, and the chairman had difficulty controlling them.

    Willem de Lange did an excellent job, but it tested his knowledge several times.

    David Wratt [from NIWA] put over the same line that he did at his lecture last Wednesday and he honed in on the chief weakness of the Durkin programme, the reluctance to challenge the “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” which was accepted as authentic even by Fred Singer. While Durkin was accused of “cherry-picking,” the MGSTAR is consistently chosen by the IPCC as the only authentic temperature guide, and all others are carefully downgraded. For example, Manning quoted the IPCC about “the warming of the last fifty years”, carefully omitting mention of the satellite and weather balloon records which do not quite make it, and failing to mention that there was cooling for the first half of the period. When the USA was mentioned somebody should have said that the corrected temperature record for the USA shows no warming [and that the warmest year in recent times is not 1998, but 1934].

    Wratt even dragged out the Son of Hockey Stick which, again depends on their cherry-picked MGSTAR. Willem made a good point in saying that [in this cherrypicked factoid] the “proxy” measurements stop as soon as they do not agree with the surface readings.

    It is unfortunate that Pat Michaels , in The Great Global Warming Swindle did not mention his part in the paper with Ross McKitrick , 2007 which shows that the MGSTAR is biased by “socioeconomic factors”. This paper is published in the peer-reviewed prestigious Journal of Geophysics Research.

    Wratt makes great play with how the IPCC only deals with peer-reviewed publications, unless, of course, if it is a Journal they do not approve of, like Energy and Environment. He does not mention that the IPCC controls the Editors and the peer-reviewers of most of the Journals,

    As far as I know, David Wratt has never published a peer-reviewed paper on the climate, and his name does not appear in any of the copious references listed in the IPCC 4th Report. Neither does the name of Martin Manning, although I do have one paper by him in my reprint collection.

    Insufficient play was made by the point made in The Great Global Warming Swindle that everything written by the IPCC has to be approved by the Government Representatives. With the “Summary for Policymakers” they have to approve each line. David Wratt is a “Drafting Author” taking down dictation. They like to pretend they are independent of the politicians and they are not.

    Cindy Baxter was a disaster for her supporters. She obviously did not understand a word of the film or what the others were talking about and she made a feeble attempt to accuse us all of being paid off by big oil. The reality is she is paid how to think by Greenpeace Headquarters.

    Martin Manning [a 'professor of Climate Change' at Victoria University] has aged considerably from when I first knew him. He looks like a possible suitable candidate for the role of Count Dracula and did not come over as very convincing.

    I find it difficult to believe that anybody who witnessed the programme could possibly still believe that the science behind the global warming theory is settled. I wonder how many watched, anyway?

    Anyone like to answer him?”

    Zing!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  108. Matt

    It alarms me. More to the point it raises my level of wrath to the point where if Monsieur Durkin happened to be handy there would be a bloody mess to clean up. Is that enough? Worse, I was not able to stay up to watch the debate. I have kids. The debate should have PRECEDED the show so as to set the stage. Worse still, the complexity of the argument required is going be lost on most people who will see the film. I see that notPC is lost too, but that is no change whatsoever from his usual state.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  109. I can barely figure out what that paper by McKitrick and Michaels says, except that ‘it really hasn’t warmed as much as we thought’ due to anthropogenic/socio-economic factors’. A fair bit of jargon.

    Absract there: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008465.shtml

    Is it the ol’ urban heat island effect? If so, would like to know how they explain the state of the Arctic ice these days…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  110. “Is it the ol’ urban heat island effect? If so, would like to know how they explain the state of the Arctic ice these days…”

    They did….watch TGGWS with your eyes open this time…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  111. Long post by Not PC. Libertarians hate the thought that humans may have to curtail their activities (the idea of limits) as they believe they should be able to have as much of whatever they want. Fortunately for the Human race ACT is only on about 2% .
    :lol:
    What PC’s post demonstrates is that you could take whatever you wanted from the debate. Personally I was impressed by the scientist next to Lieghton (?). He had a calm pensive approach. He made the point that he has a young grandson he just adores and he hopes and prays (wishes) it wasn’t true.

    Cindy Baxter highlighted the fact that Bush had received a memo saying that the people were convinced global warming is real so we will have to deal with it by sowing doubt about it and that this is what was happening here (on the program).

    The format of swindle had all the tempo of an infomercial making a point and before you had time to dwell on it, wham, the next one (and so on).

    If anything the whole show highlighted the difficulty of presenting an issue of such complexity and (perhaps) levels of subtlety where scientific “consensus” is considered. Fortunately
    Despite the din from Climate Science Coalition there is stronger note from sensible scientists throughout the world which over powers that of our noisy Professor Moriarty types.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  112. If the Greens get their way with canceling Capitalism to “save the Planet” a whole shit load of people are going to have to die as its capitalism keeping them alive…..

    So who are you going to off first guys…? I see you have started with the Blacks and the poor via biofuel etc…..whos next to disappear to appease Gaia?

    Bush recived a memo…..like the slip this guy made maybe?

    “”To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest.”

    - Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
    ( in interview for “Discover” magagzine, Oct 1989)

    Hmmmm….!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  113. Just remind you all, who have made many comments on this thread while I was otherwise occupied, of the first comment of all by turnip28.

    He said: I am watching Recount on HBO, its an HBO movie about the 2000 presidential recount in Florida.

    Doesn’t this sum up the whole Swindle issue as well? The neocon position is that if science, history and democracy don’t suit you – just rewrite them!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  114. “Doesn’t this sum up the whole Swindle issue as well? The neocon position is that if science, history and democracy don’t suit you – just rewrite them!”

    Seems to work for the left Toad

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  115. And James, I thought TGGWS said the highish observed warming of the last few decades was due to ‘solar activity’? And again it seems utterly bizarre that the Arctic temperature readings could be biased by economic activity, off the top of my head. I would love to see a world correlation between urbanisation and warming somewhere, but I can’t see leprechauns anywhere either.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  116. so let’s see:

    the right are accusing the left of a conspiracy, and the left is saying it’s a neocon conspiracy.

    which does tell us one thing: essentially, this is a political debate.

    Politics disguised as a scientific debate. It’s not about science, it’s about whether you’re republican or democrat, act/national or green/labour. A recent poll in the US shows scepticism is on the rise due to an increase in republican scepticism.

    Science as political football.

    And notice most of the right’s scientific discussions end up talking about kyoto/economics … because that’s the real target. And given that Kyoto was science-driven, it follows that the way to stop the regulation is to go after the science.

    etc.

    Anyway looking forward to hysteria from the NZCSC this week as their chief conspiracist, head of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri hits town and tells it like it is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  117. Right so the Green Party managed to get Bush to enact government subsidies for biofuels in the US, wow.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  118. I loved the movie but i still think Al Gore’s video was better.
    If global warming is caused by human activities why hasn’t anybody put 2 and 2 together and come up with population as a major cause of global warming.
    It seems as the population has increased so have Co2 levels so to save the planet do what China is doing or was doing Only Have One Kid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  119. Cindy is simply an alarmist liar if she thinks all the skeptics receive renumeration, least of all by the oil companies. None in NZ are, and none in the GGWS. But the NIWA alarmists certainly are in NZ, by the NZ taxpayer, especially Wratt. Cindy is paid by Greenpeace, oh but that’s somehow okay, whereas skeptics are supposed to work for nothing!
    And the lengths the Thought Police went to! If there is NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF, why was the doco shown on a longweekend when only sport talkback hosts were on the following day?
    T

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  120. I see I need to point out the errors in the Swindle here as well.

    http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/4/parent/0/pid/4/t/publications

    I will go over this myself below, but the scientists had something to say about “Jerk-0ff” Durkin and his output that all the denialists are so eager to swallow….

    (sorry frog, I just want to make sure that the people who watch the swindle and believe it are QUITE clear about what they are swallowing.

    First: The arguments about CO2 itself.

    Durkin frames this as an excluded middle argument. It isn’t. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback, as almost ALL the greenhouse gases are.

    The atmosphere in general reflects an equilibrium state where absorption and emission balance. It is not static. The conditions that alter that equilibrium of the gases INCLUDE global temperature and the models have a feedback from temperature back into the gas concentrations.

    The argument about the transition from a Milankovitch driven Ice-Age to an interglacial thus becomes completely irrelevant, despite its repetition in the piece. What isn’t added to it is that the warming is 5000 years long and the delay for the CO2 appearing is 800 years. As a result absolutely nothing can be learned from that record.

    So we have a false start. This is followed by the “Solar Cycle” graph. I’ll bet you were very impressed by this graph. Did you know:

    a. It looks nothing like the solar cycles we record.
    b. Its source (apparently) “The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”

    Completely credible … not.

    Did you notice that it stops at 1980? Wonder why?

    http://www.stwr.net/content/view/1690/37/
    http://tinyurl.com/3xabr4

    Basically the data AFTER 1980 tears his thesis to tiny shreds.

    ++++++++++

    This is not to say that the sun has NO influence… it is a big factor and its influence is there, in the models, but for it to be the factor that he is alleging it has to change a lot more than we’ve seen it do.

    So we have two major untruths.

    Wunsch threatened to sue and got his interview removed from the piece. They’ve fessed up about the vulcanism claim and removed it from the piece. He’s never had to defend the Swindle in court, but were he to remove the BS it’d be about a minute and a half long.

    He asserts – Temperatures during the medieval warm period were warmer…

    1. This is is statistically unlikely at best.
    2. This is supported by a graph that was out of date most of a decade before he started his “research”, and which reflects only data from North America and the Eurozone.

    He asserts that global temperatures cooled from the 40′s to the 80′s…

    1. Again using outdated information, this is less apparent when one uses the actual data (looks more like a plateau) and it is understood as functions of industrial soot emissions, the use of buckets instead of Sea Water Injection Temperature measurements, to get the surface temp of the sea AND solar insolation.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/

    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations.shtml
    (The download target PDF is at the bottom of the page –
    “To What Extent Does Solar Variability Contribute to Climate Change?”)

    One should take advantage of such presentations to find the answers to what the science actually says.

    I’m going to leave it with that. The scientists (and these are not the ONLY scientists to refute the swindle) have done a much more thorough job than the blogosphere. The wing-nut blogs swallow the output of the swindle eagerly, and beg for more. Readers are misled and then show up here and elsewhere… and so we have to explain how they have been intellectually seduced.

    Again and again and again…

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  121. We know about the population issue.

    Explaining to the people in the third world (use the New York accent, it instructs you about how the wealthy nations actually regard it), that they have to reduce their baby-factory tendencies is no easy task. It is invariably painted as racist and worse…

    We know its a problem.

    If anyone has any useful suggestions I am sure they’ll be taken up.

    So far we are exhibiting the self-control of a tribe of monkeys with delusions of grandeur…

    This is a sociological problem. Not something I can address except to snort derision at the attempts to solve it to date.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  122. Cindy from Greenpeace earlier denied Patrick Moore was a co founder of Greenpeace:

    “One of them, Patrick Moore, they called a “co-founder of Greenpeace? – erm, no, he wasn’t. He was at GP in the very early days but left about 30 years ago.?

    Patrick Moore wikipedia page

    “Patrick Moore is a Canadian ecologist, environmentalist and activist. ..He was a founding member of Greenpeace, although he now voices harsh criticism toward the organization….He participated in the founding meetings…He served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada, as well as seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International,?

    Whislt there can be doubt Moore was indeed an actual ‘co-founder’ he certainly had a more significant involvement than; “He was at GP in the very early days?
    Its this sort of twisting of the truth from people like Cindy that takes the credibility away from your cause. ‘If’ your argument is strong you don’t need to ‘bend’ and ‘play down the facts’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  123. bj: “Explaining to the people in the third world, that they have to reduce their baby-factory tendencies is no easy task.”

    The answers lie in looking at our history ans examining why and how OUR per-family birth rates dropped, and why and how our society changed its expectations.

    To change the situation, the first two major steps are:

    First: introduce death control, and cut the infant mortality rate, (giving a reasonable expectation that a baby will live into adulthood.)

    Second: give women a social status (and an education) beyond that of “the mother of sons” and carrier of water and gatherer of firewood.

    A family needs the security that someone will provide for and look after parents in their old age. If daughters as well as sons can do this, half the problem disappears.

    In the next and following generations, with higher expectations, further steps follow.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  124. Tommy

    You say none of the interviewees in the GGWS are paid by oil companies?

    erm: wrong.

    For example, Fred Singer has been a hired contrarian working for all sorts of industries, including the oil, coal and gas industry in the US. Same with Patrick Michaels. Both have at some point been paid by the oil and/or coal industries.

    Pat Michaels was so worried about revealing his clients that he pulled out of being a witness for the auto industry in a court case last year in Vermont. (Find the story under Sept 2007).

    Interviewee Willie Soon has had at least two pieces of research paid for by the oil industry. The first was the hockey stick piece he did with Sallie Baliunas, which received a grant by the American Petroleum Institute; the second was a recent (non peer reviewed) piece on polar bears published last year (usual arguments: arctic not warming; polar bears not threatened etc), which received a grant from ExxonMobil.

    10 of the 16 interviewees in the Swindle are either paid for – or closely connected and working with – more than 30 US think tanks which receive money from ExxonMobil and other big business – see map here.

    Patrick Moore is a paid lobbyist for the nuclear and forestry industries.

    Re: NZ sceptics The Heartland Institute paid – in part – for most of the New Zealand sceptics to go to Bali to lobby against climate science. Bryan Leyland was the first to admit it. In Bali, Leyland led the CFACT delegation, doing ridiculous things like offering free massages to get people to come and watch the Swindle, making him and CFACT the laughing stock of the press room. The main conference itself took absolutely no notice of them.

    Both Heartland and CFACT have been long-time recipients of Exxon money, with the money sometimes tagged specifically for their work on climate change. And of course other big business. Heartland gets money from foundations connected with big oil (the Koch foundation, for example – Koch is the US’s biggest privately-owned oil company).

    But even Exxon has now dropped funding from these groups – and admitted their views on climate change “could divert attention” from action. (But of course this doesn’t exonerate Exxon from spending nearly $23 million since 1998 on conservative think tanks running anti-climate campaigns but hell, if even Exxon is deserting them…).

    For those of you interested in more detailed background, check out this document – leaked some years ago but particularly relevant to this discussion. The “global climate science communications plan” was written by a happy little committee in April 1998.

    Does the language in this look familiar to any of you? Undermine the science, challenge Kyoto, threats to economy, blah blah blah. Same old. As with the tobacco industry, Doubt is their product. Peddle it – through ad campaigns, through films like the Swindle.

    At the bottom of Page 4 find the members of this committee: NZCSC’s new best friends CFACT, along with Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the Marshall Institute (for whom Fred Singer was working at the time)… all or most funded continuously by Exxon since then (until now).

    These long-time tactics were of course very successful in keeping the US out of Kyoto. They are now being deployed by sceptics worldwide – and here in NZ. Our lot here would not be doing this if it wasn’t for the international campaign kicked off in the US by Exxon and its mates in the early 1990′s.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  125. Bj,

    The problem with you addressing the same issues “Again and again and again…” is that they do not address the primary concern of the populace.

    That is, how much of our money will go into the emmision trading scheme and how will this reduce global warming?

    The reason for this is simple The Al Gores are lining up to clip the ticket for 30% of the tax take.

    If you follow my link way,way, up the page and realise that corporate traders, futures traders, carbon credit traders, etc are all lining up to partake in what looks like a trillion dollar per annum cash cow, the people who are being sucked dry of money have every reason to be sceptical (not off climate change – but the money grab that is going to “fix” the problem).

    Not to mention who is in charge of auditing carbon credits?

    When I see Al Gore auditing and gathering carbon credits to sell, I get highly sceptical.

    Reminds of when Prebble sold the railways. Got Fay-Richwhite to value the asset and then sold it to them without even a second valuation.

    And people get sceptical when the Kiribati government says that global warming is causing their islands to flood. Well speak to anyone who goes to sea on a regular basis and ask them how much the sea level has risen in the last 50 years. Zip, zero, nada will be the answer.

    So what is the Kiribati government looking to export its people for? (notice they only want to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand or any other western country, not to neighbouring Papau New Guinea).

    So while the warmists and the deniers are arguing the science , us realists are rolling our eys back and say “The solution on offer is not going to make a blind bit of difference.” (only make corporates rich)

    Carbon trading is not going to solve the problem. Your children are not going to thank you for participating in it.

    As I said in my previous comment.

    It is ironic the the Greens are pushing for a cap and trade emmision schem to curb global warming. A scheme that will make their arch enemy (the corporates) very rich.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  126. eredwen Says:
    June 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    First: introduce death control, and cut the infant mortality rate, (giving a reasonable expectation that a baby will live into adulthood.)
    ……………..
    Since this is about high birth rates, why can’t they see for themselves their babies are surviving?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  127. Here’s another theory expressing the view that foriegn aid cuts out the idea of limits and so affects the number of chilred people choose to have.

    “A number of civilizations, including India and Indonesia, “had a clear picture of the limitations of their villages or communities” before foreign intervention disrupted the traditional patterns. Technical aid programs . . . “made them believe that the adoption of certain technical advances [was] going to free them of this bondage and of dependence on such restrictions.””

    http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/immigr/populate.htm

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  128. I should think that while some people look at their salary, a cost of a house etc (re famliy size) others just think “DPB”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  129. their arch enemy (the corporates)

    You said it, not the Greens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  130. Gerrit

    I was addressing the folks who have doubts about the science who are out there SWALLOWING the output of folks like Durkin in great gulps, not people who have questions about what to do about it, which gets into social and economic topics as well as science.

    I was addressing only the science, the lack thereof in the Swindle and the need for people to recognize that the science is NOT predicated on the need to act nor galvanized into existence because Hansen’s kids need orthodonture… but is what comes from the scientists research.

    What to do about it can be a separate post and probably ought to be a separate THREAD…. but we can hijack this one if you wish. :-)

    Cause you and Eredwen and others are correct in that there is more to the problem than the Science. I get my hackles up when someone brings out rubbish for science because they have a problem in the “what-to-do-about-it” area.

    The problem doesn’t go away if we lie to ourselves about the science. It just gets worse.

    It doesn’t go away if we ACCEPT the science either. Accepting it only means we have to figure out what to do.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  131. Patrick

    as we know ANYONE can edit a wiki and insert anything they want – which seems to have been the case with Patrick Moore.

    Patrick Moore was on the first Greenpeace voyage, but was not a member of the “Don’t make a wave” committee set up before that by, amongst others, Bob Hunter.

    Greenpeace was never actually “founded” – it evolved between around 1969 and the early 1970′s. Moore joined the first voyage AFTER the name Greenpeace was coined. After that voyage, Bob Hunter and Ben Metcalfe formed the Greenpeace Foundation.

    Moore headed the Canadian arm of the organisation for a time. But the first Executive Director of Greenpeace International was David McTaggart.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  132. BP:

    I’m self-employed. Work for various non-profit organisations, mostly Greenpeace International, in various capacities – but not the sceptic work, which is my own. I’m a co-author of ExxonSecrets, but don’t get paid for that.

    And before you go off on one, these organisations would be perfectly happy if Climate Change was NOT an issue and was solved – there’s plenty of other environmental problems to be getting on with. However, our climate scientists and our international science unit tell us otherwise.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  133. Do you receive money from Greenpeace?

    You know what I’m getting at, obviously. An argument can be right or wrong irrespective of who funds the person making the argument.

    >>these organisations would be perfectly happy if Climate Change was NOT an issue

    Dunno. Governments do enjoy dreaming up new taxes, and business likes to click the ticket….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  134. An argument can be right or wrong irrespective of who funds the person making the argument.

    of course but you have to look carefully at an argument when it comes from people who stand to gain financially from making it – which of course does not apply to greenpeace.
    it’s not just about whether the spokesman of these organisation is a professional who is paid for their work, it’s whether the organisation itself has a commercial interest in only disseminating one point of view

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  135. Well one could say that if Greenpeace does not overstate the case for ‘disaster’, then less money will flow from people’s pockets to their organisation…?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  136. Maybe one could argue that but, for Greenpeace, climate change is the issue which is the most difficult to fundraise on.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  137. >>which of course does not apply to greenpeace

    Pffft……it’s all marketing.

    >>has a commercial interest in only disseminating one point of view

    Perhaps, but I didn’t see the green movement jumping up and down about Al “The Middleman” Gore.

    Following the money can be an illuminating exercise, however.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  138. Exactly what has Gore done with regard to cashing in all of this?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  139. What hasn’t he done is more the question.

    You may wish to start with Generation Investment Management…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  140. gore could far more easily have cast his lot with the oil industry if all he wanted was profits for himself.
    as for greenpeace, they don’t distribute profits to their shareholders, so the incentive isn’t there to increase business. in some circumstances an individual here or there within a non-profit orgainisation might be in a position to lose or retain their job, but it’s not like a profit-making enterprise promoting their main economic activity

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  141. The oil industry is a right wing horse, Andrew. There will be no Nobel Peace prizes for riding that nag home….

    >>the incentive isn’t there

    I think you’re being a little naive.

    What makes you think a capitalist wants the earth to be uninhabitable? Shrinking markets are no good for business…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  142. But the shrinking market will happen ‘later’ BP.

    Huh, Gore is on the board of Apple computers as well. Jeez, he *really* should be declaring GIM when he talks on sustainability, though at the same time Heartland has hidden their donors. Quite impressed that Gore managed to get the former global head of Goldman Sachs on board!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  143. I thought they no longer published them because some organisations pounced on the fact they had oil industry donors, and therefore they couldn’t *possibly* have anything useful to say?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  144. I’ve already answered that rather tired question – or are you not clear what the term “work for” means?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  145. >>I’ve already answered that rather tired question

    Does “I’m self-employed. Work for various non-profit organisations, mostly Greenpeace International, in various capacities”

    ….mean “yes”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  146. >>I wouldn’t be particularly wary of Cindy

    It’s more a question of “if someone is paid by an organisation, does that negate the value of what they say”?

    Not necessarily, is my view. But Cindy, during the debate, seemed to suggest the skeptical position was being paid for by big oil, and therefore, presumably, irrelevant.

    So which is it to be?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  147. In my view, the value “of what they say” is often negated by shoddy, unpublished science.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  148. Oh Eredwen

    >
    >> First: introduce death control, and cut the infant mortality rate, (giving a reasonable expectation that a baby will live into adulthood.)

    Second: give women a social status (and an education) beyond that of “the mother of sons? and carrier of water and gatherer of firewood.

    A family needs the security that someone will provide for and look after parents in their old age. If daughters as well as sons can do this, half the problem disappears. In the next and following generations, with higher expectations, further steps follow.

    >>
    >

    As I remember my history, my generation was borne from the need to ‘restock’ the population after the 2nd world war, we were known as ‘The Baby Boomers’.

    In the 1940s, 50s and 60s, there was little ‘cot death’ in the UK, yet still we buggers were born.

    And in general, our mothers were carers and looked after The Family as a majestic manager whose word was law – hence the term, often used by people of my generation, She Who Must Be Obeyed (pronounced swimbow). They did not abandon their children to daucare or other ‘care’ than their own, they were happy with the “things” they chad and cound afford, unlike us lot, and subsequent exes and whys who cannot get enough ‘things’ no matter how much they (as a partnership) earn.

    Unfortunately, a family does need the security that someone will provide for and look after children before they mature and parents in their old age. Sadly, today’s wonderful society does not encourage that, at either end. Come with me to visit parents fobbed off into ‘retirement’ homes so that their children don’t have the day to day worry of looking after them; like their parents when they were young, they’d rather pay someone to do the job so they can continue to accumulate more things!

    The picture you paint is not real, and hasn’t been since the 40s and 50s, and yes, it’s my generation’s fault. However, no matter how much we try to pass on to your generation the insights we have gained from being wrong, you won’t listen, any more than you would when we tried to teach you what was right and what was wrong. Hence the tragedy that is today’s mob-rules youth, who have no respect for anything except their own desires – but that’s another rant I guess!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  149. Cindy. I’m sorry but you’re just not telling the truth.

    I was a comms contractor to Greenpeace in 1985 during the bombing. I know very well his involvement.

    1971 – 1986
    Dr Patrick Moore joined Greenpeace as founding member in 1971 and served as director and international director until 1986. President of Greenpeace Canada, 1977-1986. Leader of many Greenpeace campaigns including voyages to save the whales, expeditions to stop the seal hunt, end uranium mining, protest nuclear warships, halt toxic waste discharges, and restrict supertanker traffic. Participant in development of environmental policy, the constitution of Greenpeace International, and strategy for raising mass awareness of environmental issues.

    “as we know ANYONE can edit a wiki and insert anything they want?.
    Yes, and I’m sure GP are masters at it?

    (P.S nice work whoever changed the link in my previous post to a different Patrick Moore)

    frogmaster writes: no-one changed your link. The automatic link creating feature of the WordPress software that runs this blog could not handle links with ( ) in them, that’s all. I have fixed it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  150. Cindy, you seem to think that being paid by the government as Minister Parker to be a global warmer, to be Mr Wratt and work for his huge taxpayer-funded salary for NIWA as spokesperson for GW, to work for a newspaper which generates funds from sensationalist climate change propaganda, or to receive massive research funding as a global warming scientist from the tax coffers, does not constitute getting paid. But receive one speaking fee from Exxon, (and that is only conjecture)well, that means you have sold your soul to the Devil and so your opinions are compromised. There is no money trail to skepticism, but a H-U-G-E money trail to Kyoto, emission taxes and penalties and eco-regulation.

    Cindy, you are ****, or as big a liar as your hero Al Conman Gore, who travels the world in a luxury jet selling carbon credits to governments, whose house has a carbon footprint as big as a small town. Come clean Cindy, do you honestly think there is not fantastic profit from environmentalism? Profit for the rich, at the expense of the poor and elderly. Absolute shame on you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  151. or to receive massive research funding as a global warming scientist from the tax coffers

    Right… all those WEALTHY scientists.

    Nobody at NASA gets rich because they back a particular viewpoint. No scientist gets wealthy by making his science fit some political agenda… People who are DOING THEIR JOBS have concluded that there’s a problem.

    But their jobs are not dependent on the problem..they’d be paid researchers, they’d be ministers, or they’d be at NIWA no matter if there were warming or not. It happens to be THEIR JOB to look at the science and the science says that there is a problem…

    Since I started working for NASA I never saw ANY scientist make sh!t science to get more money. It does not work that way. It NEVER works that way. The clowns who made the swindle made a LOT of sh!t up and you lot swallow it whole. It’s insults a lot of people I know and respect and if you think I sound angry you should try saying something like that to my face.

    You have some weird idea that this must be about the money…. perhaps because you know you can’t win on the science.

    You all seem ideologically driven to embrace ANYTHING that will allow you to keep from admitting that people may just need to work together to avert catastrophe. That government has a role to play.

    IF WE DO NOT PUT A PRICE ON THE COMMONS WE WILL DESTROY IT. You know that that is true. You hate the idea that we have to control ourselves.

    When did raping future generations become a libertarian-conservative value?

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  152. bjchip
    We’re raping future generations now, by consolidating the wealth with the bosses of the West and the oil cartels. Those who run the oil empire and their puppet governments, that includes NZ. If you work for NASA you are a scientist and paid to run a certain line. If you look on NIWA’s website their mission statement is clear and political, not science, but upholding governmental environmental policy, whatever that might be. They are the appointed spokespeople and that is why NIWA was set up. They ARE paid to promote global warming. here’s an example – their boss, Dr Jim Salinger, did his phD in global warming, according to a recent Herald profile on him. So go figure..
    T

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  153. You’ve gotta be joking…”to provide a scientific basis for the sustainable management and development of New Zealand’s atmospheric, marine and freshwater systems and associated resources.” Gimme a break.

    So the head of people who study climate (Salinger) should perhaps have done a sociology degree on deconstructing social theories of structuration instead?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  154. Yes, good idea..or a degree in damage control.
    NIWA predicted the Waikato would get no drought relief rain before the end of June. The drought ended at the close of April.
    NIWA’s long-range forecast predicted little snow will be falling throughout autumn. There were two snow dumps just in April.
    The NIWA forecast was for a warm dry May but it ended up wet and cold. NIWA were predicting stable weather for second half of May and early June. Just the opposite occurred.
    Go into any rural pub and listen to the talk. Most farmers see NIWA as a dog that can’t hunt. If they can’t predict a season ahead, you can’t believe anything they say about extreme weather in 50 years time.
    Tommy

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  155. A late response to “Strings 9 June 2008 at 3:40pm” :

    I suspect we “talked past each other”.

    I was referring to the roles of women in families of “the Third World” (now euphemistically called “the Developing World”) and NOT those in Western Society as we know it.

    My personal experience? I was born in the early 1940′s, and had a highly educated/qualified mother who spent most of her life as an “at home” parent for her two children. Her talents and “know how” were used in the Community, with some part time work or relieving work in her profession from time to time (when my grandmother took over the role of “being there for us” when we came home for school.) … Thus I know first hand, from the female perspective, the pros and cons of this approach/situation. (My father was a very good parent and partner to his wife, but he was often absent because the responsibilities of his job.)

    Unlike my mother, I ended up having to juggle work and the care of my two young kids without the support of a partner (because of a marriage breakup which led to their father living overseas) … NOT an easy life for either parent or children! (However, my parents made sure that they were there to help.)

    Despite its challenges, overall my life when my children were young was VERY easy compared to that of many women in the Third World!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  156. To add to the above (having reread Strings’ post):

    In our family, in return for my parents’ care of us when we needed them, my children and I we were “there for them” in their old age, living nearby and enabling them to stay in their home until the end of their lives.

    I had the great privilege of being with each of my parents as they died. I find that my (female) friends have done, or are doing, the same.

    However, I do agree with Strings that there is a move away from this expectation of family care.

    It is not necessarily one sided however.

    Many retirees / senior citizens now seem to move away from the family and the family home to a new life elsewhere, leaving their kids and grandkids to cope without them? (This is particularly noticeable among those who are more affluent … )

    Could it be that the dreaded “Baby Boomers”, conceived after the WW2, are now showing tendencies of being the first “Me First” Generation in their older age, and that their kids are just following suit ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  157. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    I’m nor sure Eredwen

    People born post 1945 are now starting to retire in droves, though we all only start to hit the Magic 65 in another 2 years. So typically, the people moving away from their family homes, etc. are the ‘pre-baby-boom’ lot (though theyt’ve mostly the same views on life as we have). Certainly I recently sold off the old “family home’” a rambling six bedroom place built in 1914, as it was too big for two people to rattle around in, two expensive to heat (compared to what we could manage with in a smaller place,) and not a place that any of the four chldren would want to live in because of its age.
    We set our children on life’s path as well as we could; we still support them in many of the things we do; I think (if there’s enough notice – wich I hope there isn’t,) they and their partners anc children will all be there to say goodbye when the time comes.
    I don’t think you can call us the first “me first” generation, because in the main we sacrificed a lt for our children, particularly in the early days. I know we would have been MUCH better off if my wife had worked instead of being a “home mother”, but our priorities were different. As an example, I met a couple a few days ago who were moaning that it was impossible for them to buy a house as a 10% deposit was expected; they said this in the lounge of their rented apartment in Wellington, with two large flat-screen TVs, frniture that would have looked good in House & Home magazine, and with two less then 2 year old german cars in the basement! We used ‘hand me down’ furniture and public transport until we got on the housing ladder, and even then it was three years before we bought any furniture,
    Expectations are different, that’s all.

    ANyway. Good on ‘ya for being there for your folks! You a great tribute to them and their ways.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  158. If you work for NASA you are a scientist and paid to run a certain line.

    I worked at NASA and I have NO idea what “a certain line” signifies in this context :-) …. the folks there work on instruments and experiments and they report their findings… perhaps you mean that they are geologists and so work on earth-studies and so forth? I am seriously not clear about what you meant.

    If you are referring to the NIWA strategic direction PDF from 2007 I might point out that all crown research organizations share that bit of political jargon at the top. It would not however, make a profit if it didn’t do good science.

    The strategic statements are always political. The research outcomes are not dictated by those statements.

    Is there something WRONG with these goals? Working for NZ?


    • mitigating and adapting to climate change;
    • ensuring a secure and sustainable energy supply;
    • achieving high returns from aquaculture by farming
    high-value species;
    • ensuring the wise allocation of freshwater resources
    and protecting water quality;
    • improving responses to impending weather-related
    hazards by using new real-time technologies for data
    capture and forecasting.

    Salinger isn’t the boss of NIWA… he’s the head of the “Climate Variability” division… and as such he’d BETTER have a diploma saying something like “I studied real science” from somewhere where science is actually studied. One does have to understand that while it is TRUE that he is a climate scientist, his position is by no means the top of that particular heap and is such that he’d better have that background.

    I know that the NZ Herald and a broad subset of amateur hour analysts feel certain that they could do a better job of the science than actual scientists who are FOREVER drawing the same faulty conclusions from their data. SURELY we don’t have to change a thing and growth is good, just like it was for great-grandpappy back in the 18th century.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  159. There is no money trail to skepticism, but a H-U-G-E money trail to Kyoto, emission taxes and penalties and eco-regulation.

    For who? Not for the scientists Tommy, and the implication that they alter the data to fit the funder’s fundamental beliefs is insulting AND untrue. Politicians do that sort of cr@p but usually NOT scientists.

    I tend to regard that both sides are misplacing the emphasis on money though. Most of this boils down to a fundamental problem.

    The scientists are telling us all that our activities have an influence on climate. In other words, the planet has a thermostat we can to some degree control. It is a very imperfect control and we can’t see the results of any change to it for decades, but the scientists are quite sure it is there.

    For POLITICAL reasons there are people who would rather this control not exist, because if it does then SOMEONE has to control it. This cannot be permitted.

    It entails more government AND economic changes.that will be unpalatable to those who currently have all the money and power.

    These are arguments that have to be settled… but because they are very difficult arguments there is a minority who instead attack the scientists for telling us there is a problem.

    That’s simply BS. The scientists don’t give a rats rear end what solution the society uses… they are describing the PROBLEM. Select someone supreme ruler of the entire planet with absolute power to command action and let him/her make the decisions… scientists DO NOT CARE… as long as effective decisions are made.

    Attacking the science is a symptom of a misdirected suspicion.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  160. bj
    you’re right, scientists do not care, as long as they continue to receive funding. from whom? Whoever will pay them. That leaves the field wide open for governments with taxation agendas and conglomerates intent on getting top dollar if they can convince people of scarcity, like the oil people..
    Temperatures are cooler all over the world at the moment as we await the arrival of sunspot Cycle 24 to kick in.
    T

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  161. Not my fight, but you seem to be implying all scientists will tailor their data to suit whoever requests research…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  162. Eredwen

    I apologise, my last posting was in reference to your “in addition: posting, which appeared before that which you were adding to did. If fact, I’ve just seen the original post this morning.

    I’d like to quote your first message if I may

    >
    >>I was born in the early 1940’s, and had a highly educated/qualified mother who spent -my childhoos right through school, even though I was at boarding school – life as an “at home? parent for her – three – children.

    That (amended) quote now refers to me, so I understand your background and fully empathise with the priviledge you and I had back then.

    My (2nd) wife is from a ’3rd world country’, pehaps one of the worst to live in because of a bitterly fought civil war that has gone on for over 25 years. We have a home there, and visit regularly. When we are there we go to a local village (population 850) that we have ‘adopted’ the children of, and so I see first hand the people and talk to them about their lives. (Our adoption only involves providing the kids with the ‘things’ they need for school (paper, excercise books, pens, pencils, textbooks, cloth for uniforms, shoes, etc.,). It costs little (about $2000 a year for EVERYTHING for all the kids,) by our standards, but a lot by theirs (average wage is $7 per week) .

    When I’m in the village, my spirits are always lifted. The people are happy. The children run around and play on the ‘streets’ (like most children of ‘our era’ did,) they don’t need or desire ‘computer games. The mothers are smiling and going about their business, they grow or barter for most of their food and don’t see the value in THINGS the way ‘we” do, their olders sons and daughters are working in garment factories, manufacturies and the army, and bringing in more wealth than the family has ever known – all of which is put into buying land or building/extending homes.

    In many ways, the majority of the third world (I don’t include most of Africa in this) have a better quality of life than we do, even though the standard of living is way below us. No one in the village has died of a stress related illness – ever :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  163. StephenR
    “you seem to be implying all scientists will tailor their data to suit whoever requests research…”
    You clearly don’t work in the science community. Scientists have to eat too. Climate scientists in state salaries usually support the state agenda or keep quiet, as there is no funding for the skeptic viewpoint. They typically leave because they miss out on promotion or are retired early on technicalities. Most just stay silent. This is not the free democratic society it makes out to be. Science is now political.
    T

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  164. Tommy

    You keep repeating that canard. With all due respect which is damned little at this point, I WORKED at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab, I KNOW scientists who are on “state salaries” and the state has damned little to say that would influence their opinions or their research. It did however, influence their public speaking and access as the NASA Inspector General recently found the Public Affairs office did a few years back.

    Unlike your surmised influence, THAT was real. Perhaps it is different in this country but I really doubt that that is the case. Scientists do not go into science to make lots of money..

    This aspersion you are casting at the scientific community is both insulting and erroneous. There’s money in it for the headliners, but it doesn’t get paid to them as salary. They have to work for it same as any other speaker on the circuit.

    In other words. For most, their PAYCHECK does not depend at all on the results of their research, only that the research is good enough to get published, and for the headliners the dependency is related to how much additional work they do as speakers. Not on their research.

    SCIENCE is not political. Blogs are political, Politicians are political… Science is not political and Engineering is not political. You get the right answer or you get proven wrong or a bridge collapses. It isn’t a subtle difference. Politics satisfies people. Science and Engineering must satisfy Mother Nature and the laws of Physics.

    —————–

    Now FINALLY we get to climate science. The effects of a Sunspot Cycle (11 years) and El-Nino pattern (a year or two) are not “Climate” which gets measured over AT MINIMUM, 30 year chunks, an entirely different timescale. Milankovitch cycles, a different timescale again.

    No scientist discounts the effects of the Sun on climate the way you discount the effects of Greenhouse Gases. The problem is that the effect of the Sun over the past several hundred years, has very little explicative power by itself, with respect to climate change. CO2 and Population numbers are statistically more powerful… the Combination of all 3 is statistically even MORE powerful.

    The term the scientists tend to leave off is population, as it is not an area of scientific study. Atmospheric Chemistry and Solar Physics get scientific funding. There is no “science” of population.

    Maybe there should be.

    In any case, the problem here is that there is a lot more to the science than to the blogosphere. I have posted enough real data and links to make that clear. Once more into the breach.

    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2007-2&page=articlesu6.html

    In particular this view…
    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/fig_21.html

    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

    Current Data… Digestible form.
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
    Less Digestible and linked to some harder
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

    Powerpoint
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20080227_UAH.ppt

    Now the point I am making here isn’t that the Sun has no influence or that it has scant influence on the science of climate change… it is that POLITICS has scant influence and that scientists are doing their damnedest to give you the truth.

    I’ve observed that the blogs of critics of the science are often run by Libertarians… and I have come to a conjecture about their motivations being political. The thing is that IF we are correct and AGW is a fact then we have shown that there is a crude thermostat in place. Once that is shown to be true, the question of who CONTROLS the thermostat becomes real and there is no answer to that question that does not entail government interference in our lives. Libertarians do not respond well to such challenges but in their efforts to avoid this one they have (in general) embraced every half-baked, unprovable, incoherent speculation of some OTHER theory as the revealed truth. Not saying YOU are a libertarian, but I am sure that no small percentage of the blogs from which you bring us these opinions are basically oriented that way.

    We aren’t Libertarians. Minds here are for the most part, open. It is possible that Solar has more influence than we realize. There’s no strong evidence of that, but it is possible.

    Just remember… the GGWS was itself, a swindle. I believe that I have already hammered it quite thoroughly. If you have more questions I am happy to have a go at them…. but don’t diss the scientists.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  165. yeah..libertarians do yabber a lot louder than their numbers justify..

    (and a nice ‘turn’ in green-passive-aggression there..bj..)

    “..With all due respect which is damned little at this point..”

    (heh..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  166. That’s a thought.Phil….thanks… might need to make it a bit more specific so that people get a specific point, or maybe not… get into arguments over a broader range of topics. … there’s the religious right and their evolution debates…

    Make it white lettering on green and a second one green on white. For me I might well add “Dues Paying Green” which has a subtle double meaning.

    I always like those, especially when both can be fairly applied.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  167. brevity is best..bj..

    keep the hook simple..

    (we all have short attention spans..)

    and green/white..is too polite..

    i’d go with black on red..or red on black..

    ..and don’t forget the exclaimation mark..!

    (i’ll bill you for the consultancy..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  168. In other words. For most, their PAYCHECK does not depend at all on the results of their research, only that the research is good enough to get published, and for the headliners the dependency is related to how much additional work they do as speakers. Not on their research.

    …how I should have put it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  169. Once again I have to disagree. I have been told by editors that as a skeptic my work would not be published, nothing as to how good enough it might be or rigorous, just political stance, and now that I am no longer in the university system I cannot apply for and secure peer-review, which nowadays seems to be a joke. I challenge anyone to cite a piece of research condemning global warming, originating from state-salaried institutions in this country. And please, moderator, give your reasons for deleting my contributions to this forum. As a society we are not yet under thought-police control. Does not such cut-editing somewhat prove my point?
    T

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  170. Plots and conspiracies are notoriously hard to prove without any evidence, no? A reporter from the BBC put forth a call for allegations of ‘bias’ in science and published the results a year later here though:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm

    As Mr Monbiot says:

    “Those who say that man-made global warming is not taking place, they claim, are being censored.

    Something is missing from their accusations: a single valid example.”

    http://tinyurl.com/5ye79g

    Although what we do have is:
    Wolfowitz ‘tried to censor World Bank on climate change’
    http://tinyurl.com/4awww6

    and from the Monbiot article:

    The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints: 1. Pressure to eliminate the words “climate change”, “global warming”, or other similar terms from their communications; 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors that “changed the meaning of scientific findings”; 3. Statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented their findings; 4. The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate; 5. New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work; 6. Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings. They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years.

    and

    Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
    http://tinyurl.com/dwvd2

    (that was the NASA press office, not scientists).

    The moderation here is a little odd, yes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  171. And that is not all!

    For those of you who still believe we have a free and independent press the following:

    At the risk of once again being labelled a “conspiracy? nut, I would like to tell you about “hydrogen on demand?.

    This little video was published last weekend on the Reuter News agency news site available to all who are subscribing to it.

    http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/water-fuel-car-unveiled-in-japan/

    This means our main stream media had access to it. This of course should be on every front page, on every TV sender, shouted of every street corner and yet this did not happen.

    Why should this be on every front page?

    Because this car drives on water.

    More specifically; it drives on H2O meaning two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule gas. What is even more spectacular is that you don’t need to go to a tank station to get your fill of this gas, you just fill the tank with any old reasonably clean water. You can use tap water, well water, salt water, hell even cold tea.

    The hydrogen/oxygen gets produced on demand. In other words if you buy the car you never have to buy a litre of fossil fuel again. What is even more amazing is that the H/O gas returns back to its more stable form: Water. In other words it is a more or less an infinite resource.

    So why was this not on the front page of every bloody news paper?
    Let me give you a hint: George Bush(Big Oil) and Murdoch(Big media) were sharing a cosy dinner at Downing street courtesy of prime minister Gordon Brown last monday. With a bunch of historians by the way, no doubt talking about how to falsify history.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/16/antiwar.georgebush

    Now before you bin this water fuelled car idea because you still think that we have a free and independent media and they would surely tell us about something that would obviously benefit mankind like nothing has ever done before therefore this car must be a hoax, I suggest you Google “hydrogen on demand? and be amazed at what is out there.

    My husband is an industrial electrician/engineer. As this news came out this weekend he was installing our first “Hydrogen on demand? booster in our old Honda Civic. It is the first step to a complete “Hydrogen on demand? driven vehicle. The booster produces enough Hydrogen/Oxygen to save up to 40% on Fossil fuel and we hope with a few minor adaptations it will save up to 80%. That is this weekends job.
    Did I believe that this was possible when he showed me what a couple of Google searches yielded? Shit no, it took a long time before he convinced me.
    But there you have it: I have seen water burn ladies and gentlemen.
    Well actually more correctly I have seen water explode rather violently.

    Don’t believe me: Google and ye shall find. You’ll also find some pretty out there ideas, so be careful about those. Use your common sense.

    And then perhaps you will finally realise that we are deliberately kept in the dark about some truly amazing inventions that could liberate all of us from the tyranny of big oil and allow this planet to clean up and rebalance itself without a cent of carbon tax.

    Why is this not suppressed seeing as “they? control everything you ask?
    Well it started very small, via e-mail and then via free forums that spread like wild fire around the globe making control impossible.
    This knowledge is already quit old and a lot of patents were freed up and put into the public domain online recently. In fact my 82 year old father-in-law knew about this way back in the sixties.
    People then made the mistake of patenting it and trying to earn lots of money with it. Now everybody just seeds this knowledge on all kinds of sites in order to get the knowledge out. It is ironic that the one thing that can save this planet and us is the only thing that
    cannot be monopolised. Perhaps someone out there is trying to tell us something.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>