Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Brent Jackson,
So what are his options now ?
Woohoo Bingo!
We now have the
“Science is never absolutely certain so because there is always some doubt it must be wrong”Pity we still know who pays him to post this shit.
-
OnPoint: Beyond 'a bad look', in reply to Alfie,
We’ve come from a $18 billion deficit five or six years ago ...
A deficit they created by their ridiculous tax cuts
to pretty much a surplus.
Which would be pretty much the truth, much like being mostly a virgin.
-
OnPoint: Beyond 'a bad look', in reply to Russell Brown,
Tova O’Brien’s “Angry Andy” report on 3 News last night might as well be a picture of what Keith is talking about in the post.
It was bizarre. It was like she'd read Kieth's post and thought he was promoting that kind of content free reporting.
It was mildly amusing in that it made both leaders look like plonkers.
I guess the only plausible excuse might be that until the actual budget comes out we can't say there is no surplus.
-
OnPoint: Beyond 'a bad look', in reply to Grant Taylor,
And I don’t see how the journalism we got, flawed though it was, could have been the decisive factor in either the election result or the behaviour patterns of the current government.
Except it is pretty clear that elections are now won and lost on the media-driven perception of the parties by the public. Journalists play a significant role in that perception whether they want to have that responsibility or not.
If you don't believe that then ask yourself why would National spend so much effort to shape the way stories are told about politics by those journalists. Not just wooing them but feeding them stories from multiple directions in a deliberate effort to shape what and when journalists will publish.
And believe me I have sympathy for the actual journalists. They are caught with mortgages just like the rest of us. they have limited employment opportunities and decision making is largely out of their hands.
Any journalist who doesn't play by National's rules better have an independent source of income. And before Craig blasts me, Labour is only saved from similar criticism by their incompetence not their intent.
-
OnPoint: Beyond 'a bad look', in reply to Grant Taylor,
I think it is a bit of a reach to ascribe the behavior of the current government to journalistic ineptitude.
If you watch the TV news and read the daily newspapers then you'll see story after story that supports and enables the behaviour of this current government.
The few times a journalist has dared to tread even close to describing faults in the behaviour of the government a legion of stories immediately appears to a) discredit said journalist and b) outright deny any fault regardless of the facts.
So I disagree with you, our current batch of journalists in the MSM DO enable and support this behaviour.
More importantly those same journalists enjoy privileges in law and society that they are given because society expects them to ensure our government behave fairly and honestly.
I think there is a strong case to be made that journalism as a profession has failed New Zealand over the last decade.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Stamper Stamp,
shoot the messenger
Don't be silly, we just call you a troll and wait for the admin to kick you to the curb since you've stopped contributing anything other than recycled lies.
-
OnPoint: Beyond 'a bad look', in reply to JonathanM,
Continuing to ask the PM for comment, regardless of which political stripe they may be, is ludicrous.
No it isn't. It's good job security.
Our PM actively excludes reporters who ask hard questions, so reporters are trained to never ask hard questions and never challenge the ignorant comment given. More importantly they are rewarded for giving the PM air time, both by their employers and by the PM himself (with more access).
The PM benefits because he gets more and more free uncritical advertising.
The reporter is rewarded for getting more time with the PM.
It's a vacuous circle.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to James Bremner,
Interesting how you only plot that graph from 1975.
Perhaps because by showing only that portion of the graph you can pretend the models always fail.
Interesting to note your source http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-christys-skepticism.html is yet another shill for big oil, although not directly he does serve on some interesting think tanks, wonder what his fee is?
Same lies, same source, same motivation. The desire to maintain wealth at the cost of peoples lives.
And perhaps you might read the original post again because your thesis that continuing the current global economic model will benefit the developing nations is simply not borne up by evidence.
Your assertion that India and the like are hostile to the CC treaties because they want that economic model is also wrong. Their opposition is based on the fact that the USA in particular is refusing to reduce it’s own fossil fuel use while insisting that poor countries stop burning coal which is patently unfair.
-
The highest-paid director at MC can earn, by regulation, no more than 6.5 times what the lowest-paid workers take home.
Last time our PSA agreement came up for renegotiation I suggested we ask that no employee be paid more than 15 times the salary of the lowest paid staff member. At that time our CEOs salary would have just fit into that restriction.
The proposal went out to members to be voted on. The staff rejected the proposal.
Sometimes people are hard to understand.
-
Sadly Nature is a paid journal but the abstract is still free and provides a good summary.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2617.html
We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn primarily results from human influence6. For 2 °C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable to human influence rises to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further warming.
But you missed the point, I knew you could drag something up from somewhere.
The difference is always that you are motivated by greed and a casual dismissal of the lives that will be lost by your actions. You are happy to kill people so long as you get your paycheck.