Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Let's lynch the liberals!

455 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 19 Newer→ Last

  • Keir Leslie,

    But where is the bloody class warfare?

    If Labour become the party of militant class activism, well done, that's the point of the whole thing. Except I'm really not seeing any militant class activism out of Goff.

    I don't think putting militant class activism as opposed to gay rights is at all sensible. It's the worst kind of identity politics, and empirically speaking there doesn't seem to be much of a negative correlation at all.

    (Trotter's got a bit of the Orwell problem, doesn't he, except without the saving brilliance.)

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Eh, what are Maori gonna do about it huh? Form their own party? Go into coalition with National? Ha! I'd like to see that!

    Ha, indeed! :) As I've said many times around here and elsewhere, it's happened. Build a bridge out of reality, and get over it. At the moment, Key is contributing more to healthy race relations than Goff -- and that's all on Goff, not Key or Hone Harawira or the Maori Party. He owns his own words; that's how grown-ups roll.

    (As a side-bar: I'm very comfortable with the way Key drives the Oily Whales and prick-laden Cactuses of this words also-fucking-loutely insane. In Phill Goff's position I'd be asking myself how badly I'd want those fools as my new best friends. As the proverb goes: You lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. The problem is, in this case you're also at risk of getting up with the kind of crabs that just don't quit.)

    The sooner Labour works through its sense of unearned entitlement to unquestioning Maori electoral loyalty (or at least stops being stuck on a particularly rancid "denial" and "anger" stage of grief that the Maori Party even exists), the better for everyone.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • uroskin,

    C Ranapia: and they're still facing a massive obstacle to win a workable majority thanks to an FPP system massively advantaging Labour.

    Misunderestimation quote of the thread award. Maggie is turning in her grave for dissing her FPP majorities.

    Waiheke Island • Since Feb 2007 • 178 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    I'm always surprised that global warming holds the front line in the enviro battle, when it's plainly fucking obvious to everyone that humans are soiling the fucking earth so disrespectfully.

    It's like some oily teen arguing with his parents about whether the junk in his room is causing the room to heat up. Ffs kid, the room is a mess, just clean it, I don't care about your findings on the effects of your junk.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • richard,

    I have following the emailgate debate with considerable interest... For my own part, I have certainly sent and received email making fun of other people in my field. Although I don't think I have ever admitted to being tempted to hit anyone. But nothing in these emails that I have seen (other than the FOIA related stuff, if that is in fact what is going on) is out of the ordinary for private communications between serious and ethical scientists.

    In astrophysics and cosmology (my field), there is an increasing trend toward openness with data. My work is primarily theoretical, but I make fairly heavy use of "data products" provided online to anyone with an internet connection by NASA (distilled from large space-based surveys of the sky) and ground-based experiments.

    This sort of openness with regard to climate data seems like an excellent idea. It WOULD lead to many more people writing crank and/or shoddy papers (this openness certainly makes it easier for people to write crap papers in astrophysics -- and I have rejected my share of them) but it would also force skeptics /deniers to produce their own analyses which could then be critiqued by the rest of the community. And I suspect that would be fun...

    But I suppose the best way for global warming skeptics to establish their moral superiority in this matter would be simply publish their email archives, and expose to all and sundry the high-minded and ethical tone of all their own communications.

    Not looking for New Engla… • Since Nov 2006 • 268 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    ...because it lifts us to such lofty heights.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Where's the climate data? It hasn't been hidden. A great deal of it is in plain sight. These denialist fools deserve no quarter.

    As one commenter on a website correctly identified:

    what’s really happening is that honest scientists delivering a message that certain members of society don’t like are being subjected to a witch hunt, harassement, and attacks meant to ruin their careers.

    This movement has become like the creationist, cigarette industry, anti-vaccine and AIDS denial anti-science movements. Except, for obvious reasons, there is a lot more at stake, and a lot of powerful interests who would like to defend the status quo and delay action on climate change for as long as possible.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    To a first approximation it is the Big Tobacco people.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Curtis,

    Honest scientists ??
    The emails show differently.

    When they want the rest of the world to change their ways, at the cost of 100's of billions, is disclosing the detailed raw data that difficult?
    In fact most peer reviewed journals require it, but dont enfoce it.

    Faux Climate makes a big deal of open sources ...now. But its authors have those behind the hiding of source data for published research. Of course its a public relations gesture,as they will only give to 'approved researchers'

    NIWA says we have told you 'Why' so go away. And when asked 'How' they say you are not scientists or something

    The people NIWA fear most is the Met Service , who they have been in open conflict for some time, with a truce papering over the cracks

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson,

    I do think the Maori Party has sold out poor urban Maori – and for that matter the rest of us – with its ETS deal.

    New Zealands preferred solution is a flat carbon price (functionally a regressive global tax) that will spread the burden of climate change to all the world. To support our postion we needed to adopt an ETS prior to Copenhagen and that involved some horse trading. Hopefully NZ with our like minded fellows in the OECD can now persuade India, Brazil & China to adopt this flat carbon price approach to confronting climate change. If we can do this we all stand to benefit, except obviously the Worlds poor.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Curtis,

    A comparison with Tobacco would be if the world had warmed say 10C over the last century instead of 0.6C and the skeptics would ask where is the evidence?

    From memory the risk factor for smoking and lung cancer was 30 times that of a non smoker.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    On sale at Unity Bookshop in Wellington: "I miss Helen" badges.Indeed -- Helen Reddy hasn't put out an album of new material in over a decade.

    What, no Helen Keller jokes?

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2562 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg,

    When they want the rest of the world to change their ways, at the cost of 100's of billions,

    beautiful clear blue skies in BKK today, as they have been for much of the week. Incredible what a bit of public transport, and enforced emission tests on vehicles does to a dirty yellowy grey town in a fairly short time.

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3283 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    What, no Helen Keller jokes?

    I tried. Oh God, I tried -- but I do have a bad taste filter between brain and typing finger after all. Don't know about you, but "I miss Helen Keller -- but her aim's shit too" really doesn't do it for me.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    @Steve:

    The people NIWA fear most is the Met Service , who they have been in open conflict for some time, with a truce papering over the cracks

    However much you'd like to be true Steve, in the case of AGW, it's not. That's been made amply clear to anyone who can read. The two organisations have a turf war over forecasting, but there is no way they fundamentally disagree on AGW.

    A comparison with Tobacco would be if the world had warmed say 10C over the last century instead of 0.6C and the skeptics would ask where is the evidence?

    From memory the risk factor for smoking and lung cancer was 30 times that of a non smoker.

    That's the most magnificently meaningless apples-and-oranges comparison I've seen in ages.

    But what say some of the leading climate change deniers were also paid tobacco industry shills? Wouldn't that disincline any thinking person to doubt them?

    And what say many of the leading lights were relentless credential inflaters and dissemblers? Because they are. Basically, by any of the means a lay person can use to assess scientific credibility, the leading denialists fare very poorly indeed.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    FYI. Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan from 1930.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3227 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    And I might also add that the denial lobby would disappear altogether were it to be subject to the kind of scrutiny its mouthpieces demand for science:

    NASA officials censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.

    And:

    The Bush aide who secretly edited scientists' reports on global warming trotted off to a job with ExxonMobil.

    And:

    And ExxonMobil offered researchers $10,000 each to dissent from a major climate change report in 2007.

    There's plenty more. Have any of these revelations ever troubled you as much as the CRU emails do, Steve? Because frankly, I think they should be greater cause for concern.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    FYI. Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan from 1930.

    Wow, thanks for that Hilary.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • kmont,

    Ditto, thanks Hilary.

    I am tutoring some adult literacy students and it is fun to go through the sound formation stuff with them. What I hope is that the scientific approach feels more adult for them. Because they aren't, you know, dumb.....

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 485 posts Report Reply

  • Phil Lyth,

    Maggie is turning in her grave for dissing her FPP majorities.

    Better get in before DPF starts spinning in his grave: Thatcher the cat is dead; the Baroness is still alive.

    Wellington • Since Apr 2009 • 458 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Curtis,

    Russell , apart from getting off ' wheres the data path', your link
    And ExxonMobil offered researchers $10,000 each to dissent from a major climate change report in 2007. goes to AEI via The Guardian.

    Yes AEI, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, not quite ExxonMobil, but well accept that perhaps Exxon has given some money to a business orientated policy research outfit who cover many topics .
    Any way regarding the IPCC AR4 the AEI says this

    In general, the three working group reports do an admirable job of reviewing and evaluating an enormous body of scientific work and are well worth careful reading. A careful reading, however, will disabuse any fair-minded reader that many important aspects of climate science are "settled" and beyond argument.

    Thats really flinging the mud. Thats what happens when you offer $10,000 , everybody debases themselves.

    AS for GWBs aides, that was deplorable, but was a feature of other agencies that were politicised as well, and hey they were politicians doing what they do.

    Meanwhile back to emails AND the search for the data this email sequence has been examined in detail
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/

    Emails, from CRUs Phil Jones and NOAAs Kevin Trenberth (a Kiwi)to Professor Wibjorn Karlen.

    In short, the problem is that I cannot find data supporting the temperature curves in IPCC and also published in e.g. Forster, P. et al. 2007: Assessing uncertainty in climate simulation. Nature 4: 63-64.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Thats really flinging the mud. Thats what happens when you offer $10,000 , everybody debases themselves.

    "The science isn't settled" ... "the science is uncertain" ... as Frank Luntz has explained, that's exactly the message the sponsor wants.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Stewart,

    "The science isn't settled" ... "the science is uncertain" ... as Frank Luntz has explained, that's exactly the message the sponsor wants.

    The trouble is, of course, that at a certain level - i.e. the fine detail - the science isn't settled. There is huge debate over exactly how global warming will affect any number of things. But saying so is interpreted as an admission that the basic concept (increasing greenhouse gas levels lead to increased temperatures) is considered flawed. It does really remind me of the creationist issue; people mistake debate over detail for debate over substance. But we live in a world where all the options are binary. Just keep in mind the rules we're playing under.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    There is huge debate over exactly how global warming will affect any number of things.

    And neither is the politics around what would be an appropriate (and electorally palatable) public policy response. Science should not treated like a subset of ideology or a political strategy.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Curtis,

    ExxonMobils profit last year was $48 billion, Im sure $10,000 for a few papers by willing dupes would probablybe taken out of the flowers budget for the head office.

    Of course the Guardian hardly had a clean nose on this calling it ExxonMobils money when it was from AEI.
    Meanwhile their web site has been heavy with Shell advertising. So some big oil money isnt so bad after all.
    Back at he NY Times their reporter on Climate Andrew Revkin was much more directly shown to be shilling for Mann and co. he could all ways go and work for them like GWB aides did for their sponsors

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 19 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.