Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
re: Bill Bailey
His destruction of American Rock at the end of part 2 is v. funny. -
...by Pamela Stirling and Joanna Black...
God, yes! Mind you, everyone I know is cancelling their subscriptions, so maybe it won't last.
-
I don't really understand why I just am less comfortable with it than I used to be.
Probably the same reason that you listen to Jazz these days, and not so much Rock 'n' Roll. ;)
But that's the point almost all those things cost you less money and make it easier to make money both personally and as a country.
I don't know. What you say is true for society as a whole / the world as a whole, but individually? I don't think so. To me the whole climate-change-denial thing isn't really based on science, morality, logic, or anything like that. Rather, it's about avioding any financial or lifestlye limitations that dealing with the problem might impose (with a bit of the ol' taking-pothots-at-the-ivory-tower-eggheads thrown in). Those of us who value science, morality, logic, etc. sometimes find it hard to comprehend (or easy to forget) that many people don't give a damn (if you'll excuse my language) and will corrupt these things willfully in order to maximise personal rewards.
-
PS Is it a sign of old age that I'm less comfortable with the F word now?
Bart,
I don't throw it around. In this case, I decided that given the context, strong language seemed justified. I promise to usually refrain from such usage in future, except where the entire future of humanity is at stake. ;) (Also, the rythym of the sentence demanded something punchy at that point.)The most likely answer to your other questions is: "Because it might cost me money, or prevent me from making more money".
And, as someone else noted this week in a letter to the NZ Herald: if climatologists are so confident in predicting negative climate change in 50 years time, how come they couldn't get the forecast right for Easter Weekend?
NI, This is hardly the stunning observation that you imply. Ask youself this - Which is more likely: that thousands of the world's most brilliant scientists, have failed to spot this stunningly fundamental error in their methodology? Or that you don't understand very much about statistical analysis?
-
We should do what makes sense - but normal economics will ensure that we do this anyway.
Classic!
-
My pet Jim Mora peeve: everytime he says "Obviously, ..." to an interviewee, it's usually not only not obvious, but in fact not correct.
For the first time in my life, NatRad sucks. Likewise, the Listener ('Make money' / 'lose weight' / 'make money' / 'lose weight' / 'make money' / 'lose weight'...
-
Welcome, Haldane.
Would the Herald's respondants be typical of New Zealander's current thinking, or is this just the people with too much time of their hands?
Don't forget it's a "selection" of readers' views; about as useful an indication of anything as a Close-up "poll". My brilliantly scathing response, for one, missed the cut.
Merc,
that station has gone to the dogs in the arvo. Jim Mora seems proud to be ignorant about everything, including any sense of balance. Jim Hopkins vs. Muriel Newman? Sheesh. -
That thunderbird 2 was HEAVY. Cast iron, no?
-
The point surely is that, whilst the science is not quite 100% certain (and what is?), this must be weighed against the fact that, if the theory is correct, then we are 100% fucked if we don't start doing something about it, quick smart.
-
I can't understand why fundys who profess love for God's earth and their fellow men past, present and future are so opposed to global warming.
I'd say that the fact that they're all about the next world goes a long way to understanding why they don't seem to give a damn about this one. Many fundamentalists actually want to see the End Times come on as fast as possible.
[Why won't PAS Reply accept a 'space' after an italicised phrase??!]