Key makes "peace" with actress

[James Deuce]

What the hell?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2756653/Key-makes-green-peace-with-Keisha

So an uneducated actress who struck it lucky as a child and then proceeded to screw up every opportunity that lucky break created for her, now has the intellectual fortitude to enter a debate on climate change and expect an apology from the PM when he says what we're all thinking? She has an opinion, nothing more. We all know what opinions are worth.

It is the domain of those of us Middle Aged and even more experienced to look around and "see" the "decay" in our society, but this bullshit is up there on the bullshit-o-meter right next to the Toyota Prius.

I have a friend who worked for NIWA for many, many years. He manages Geophysical Surveys using many scientific disciplines and is trusted to coordinate the activities of civilian and military data collection efforts from below the sea to 100 miles out, to the very edge of space, across the resources of many countries.

As for the argument that the climate has never changed this quickly? Fairy tale. We have at least ONE episode called the K-T boundary where most plants and animals are represented by a thin, black line of carbon deposits. No one knows why, though there are many theories.

It was he who suggested the technique of using random unreferenced numbers in any Climate Change debate I entered into, just to demonstrate how much fun making stuff up is when people know no different. (Awesome fun until being completely busted by Badjelly.) He has maps on his wall at home, showing the results of the last big survey he worked on. Sea Level isn't uniform. There are "craters" in the surface of the sea, local distortions caused by magnetic field distortions, the make up of the water itself, tidal effects, and undersea activity. Some of these craters are 200m deep. Yet no one takes him seriously when he suggests that we simply don't have enough data to predict weather 48 hours hence, let alone long reaching climactic change as the result of human activity. To this end he suggested stepping up the efforts to collect more data to develop an empirically based model. More funding goes to lobby groups in the US who are pushing Al Gore's distorted message than goes into global climate data collection.

Point a bunch of Kiwis at some slappers on the telly though, and we're all "signing up" because of the "children". Won't somebody think of the "children".

As much as the Climate Change debate has been turned into a noble crusade, that changing the way society works fundamentally needs to happen to prevent us drowning in our own filth, we deserve EVERYTHING we get when we start listening and reacting to the scripted blitherings of a chick who rode a digital whale.

[Mikkel]

No one told you? Ignorance is the new black.

[AD345]

BURN THEM!!


of course

[Mom]

Keys "making up" with Ms Keisha is the non-election time equivalent of kissing babies. Greasy and pointless and somehow distateful to boot :yes:

[short-circuit]

<object width="400" height="225"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=3068028&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;sho w_title=0&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=6F9C CE&amp;fullscreen=1" /><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=3068028&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;sho w_title=0&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=6F9C CE&amp;fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="225"></embed></object><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/3068028">Interview with Director Franny Armstrong</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/ageofstupid">Age of Stupid</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>


Taken from:

http://www.ageofstupid.net/people/franny_armstrong

[James Deuce]

For all that I dislike the now deceased old toad, Rob Muldoon would have told her to stick to acting while slightly drunk and looking directly into a TV camera at 6:01pm on the News. No hesitation. We'd never have looked at the actress in question the same way ever again.

[YellowDog]

Who's John Keys?

The Prime Minister is John Key :)

[short-circuit]

We'd never have looked at the actress in question the same way ever again.

Speak for yourself as far as being influenced by the utterances of ignorant Torys

[James Deuce]

Who's John Keys?

The Prime Minister is John Key :)

I'm surprised at both the level of emotion this "News" item sparked in me and the fact that I managed to write something that wasn't laden with discombobulated invective.

[James Deuce]

Speak for yourself as far as being influenced by the utterances of ignorant Torys

I don't see him as a Tory, more a Little Mussolini.

[Jonno.]

The inconveniant truth is man made climate change can't be proved. :banana:

Just because you got knocked up at sixteen does not mean you're informed.

[short-circuit]

The inconveniant truth is man made climate change can't be proved. :banana:

Just because you got knocked up at sixteen does not mean you're informed.

Idiot - what propaganda have you been reading? Actually more likely: listening to?

[oldrider]

I'm surprised at both the level of emotion this "News" item sparked in me and the fact that I managed to write something that wasn't laden with discombobulated invective.

You are not alone James Deuce, the Key behaviour is a worry on it's own.

The suggestion that "mankind" on earth influences the behaviour of the universe is preposterous! Just a bunch of :tugger:

With or without mankind, climate and everything else worldly changes constantly.

I hear that Chicken little is working for Al Gore these days! :stupid:

[short-circuit]

I hear that Chicken little is working for Al Gore these days! :stupid:

No no - it's mainly Edbear he's been having pillow talk with.

[alanzs]

Point a bunch of Kiwis at some slappers on the telly though, and we're all "signing up" because of the "children". Won't somebody think of the "children".

Sheeple mate, most people are nothing more than sheep. They follow wherever they are told to go; they live on their fear and stupidity and they don't think for themselves. So, who benefits????

Makes me feel kinda bad for sheep... :niceone:

[short-circuit]

Sheeple mate, most people are nothing more than sheep. They follow wherever they are told to go; they live on their fear and stupidity and they don't think for themselves. So, who benefits????

Makes me feel kinda bad for sheep... :niceone:

Too true - listen to your leader: "Nothing to see here folks, move along and let business carry on as usual"

[Clivoris]

I can never be bothered wading through the piles of Climate Change "information". In my arrogance it seems that it's a waste of energy. Any fool can see that as a species we are being wasteful and thoughtless with limited resources and it will end in tears. The more "civilised" we get the greater our ability to make truly monumental fuck-ups. Now I'm off to use as many of the non-renewable resources as I can before they are all gone.

[rainman]

...has the intellectual fortitude to enter a debate on climate change and expect an apology from the PM when he says what we're all thinking?


Speak for yerself, James. I am pretty sure I'm not thinking what you're thinking.

Besides Key was being an obnoxious and offensive arse, just trying to get a cheap laugh out of a business crowd, and he needed to apologise for that. And he has as much intellectual cred on the issue as Keisha has, or indeed Rodney Hide has.


Yet no one takes him seriously when he suggests that we simply don't have enough data to predict weather 48 hours hence, let alone long reaching climactic change as the result of human activity.


Wonder why?


Point a bunch of Kiwis at some slappers on the telly though, and we're all "signing up" because of the "children". Won't somebody think of the "children".

Some of us have a moral compass. The evidence of the deleterious effects of our petroleum-based industrial lifestyle are plain to see for all but the most blinkered libertarian "rugged individualists" - whose brains would explode, I think, if they permitted themselves to understand the doctrine of property rights in a more reality-based sense.

Somebody does indeed need to think of the children, and the mess we are leaving them in our relentless quest for flat-screen tellys and other shiny crap toys, and I applaud Keisha and Robyn and Rhys and the others, "slappers" and non-"slappers" alike, that have the guts to do so.

[rainman]

The inconveniant truth is man made climate change can't be proved. :banana:


No, the "inconveniant" truth is you're very poorly informed as to how science works.


The suggestion that "mankind" on earth influences the behaviour of the universe is preposterous! Just a bunch of :tugger:

With or without mankind, climate and everything else worldly changes constantly.

Leaving aside your poor choice of "universe" rather than "planetary ecosystem" - that's complete tosh and representative of a distinct lack of joined-up thinking.

Consider (as merely one example of many) marine "dead zones". The number of these has been doubling every decade since the 60s. I'm not aware of any remotely credible commentator who suggests these are not caused by man's activity - being nitrogen-based fertilisation of crops, and consequent runoff, in this case. Now the individual farmers could claim it's "preposterous" that they could influence anything as mighty as the ocean, yet collectively they very obviously do.

The science here is pretty clear - the impact of excess N in ocean systems is fairly well understood, the correlation between location of the dead zones and industrial farming is pretty precise, and they don't occur naturally to the same extent. Lesson: many little farmers affect big ocean.

Similar pattern for climate change. The science behind CO2 (and other gases) impact on atmospheric temperature isn't argued by any credible scienists, and we know we've emitted heaps more recently than in other historical epochs. Guess the lesson? Many little (and big) polluters affect the big atmosphere.

Yes - other things affect this too, and yes, there is constant change in nature. But using that as a flat denial of the existence of human-induced climate change is deception of the first order.

[Big Dave]

I've gone from a 6 litre V12 to a 5 litre V8.
So I did a few burnouts to celebrate being green. :apint:

[mowgli]

The science behind CO2 (and other gases) impact on atmospheric temperature isn't argued by any credible scienists, and we know we've emitted heaps more recently than in other historical epochs. Guess the lesson? Many little (and big) polluters affect the big atmosphere.
While no one could credibly argue that we collectively have no effect on climate, the question is how much. I put it that, human induced carbon emissions are to natural cycles, as my swimming in the ocean is to the tide. SFA!

The climate change debate is nothing but a Trojan horse intended to bullshit us into accepting the ETS and a new world order. The green army are hapless pawns being used to spread this new religion to the uneducated masses. They are succeeding!!! Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[rainman]

While no one could credibly argue that we collectively have no effect on climate, the question is how much. I put it that, human induced carbon emissions are to natural cycles, as my swimming in the ocean is to the tide. SFA!

Curious. What do you base that belief on?

[mowgli]

Curious. What do you base that belief on?
That this is a political debate not an environmental one.

[short-circuit]

That this is a political debate not an environmental one.

Environmental change will have politic implications so? What's that got to do with the science?

[Shadows]

What I fail to understand is how can some little girl's opinion should suddenly be regarded as important just because she acted in a movie once upon a time.

I see nothing that qualifies her to speak on such things, so why should anybody give a fuck what she thinks? I tell you why - because the fucking Woman's Weekly said so.

She should stick to acting, that's what she's good at. That is all.

Key has acted like a soft cock by apologising. He said have stuck to his guns and told her to shut the fuck up and leave the people with some clues get on with running the country.

Greenies be fucked.

[Hitcher]

Perhaps Mr Key is embarrassed that he descended into ad hominem attack. Hardly surprising for a politician, as anybody who has ever listened to Parliamentary question time can attest.

Forget about celebrity cause endorsement and the the Sandcastle-Hugheses of this world. Get suck into the rort that is Greenpeace instead.

40% carbon emission reduction? Where did that number get magicked up from? Where's the scientific analysis that supports that figure? Where's the economic analysis that clearly outlines what that means for every man, woman and child alive in New Zealand in 2020?

The government produces data produced by reputable analysts like NIWA and Infometrics, and Greenpeace says that's bullshit.

I know what bullshit is, but what's Greenpeace?

It is certainly not a membership-driven organisation whose policy making is transparent to its paying "members" and which is accountable to those same members.

If Greenpeace was a membership-based organisation, then a couple of busloads of people could rock up to an Annual General Meeting (which it doesn't have) and do serious democratic stuff, like voting off directors or even winding the organisation up.

That can't be done, because Greenpeace International is a multinational corporate conglomerate, and its operations in New Zealand are a franchise. It is the McDonald's of activism, in more ways than one.

It is an organisation that is more concerned with commercial endeavour than it is about the environment. It uses science extremely selectively (e.g. climate change and genetic modification) and formulates its policy lines at an advertising agency.

Cheryl West may genuinely care about the environment and the future of this planet, but she is nothing more than a pawn in Greenpeace's New Zealand fundraising activities.

[short-circuit]

Perhaps Mr Key is embarrassed that he descended into ad hominem attack. Hardly surprising for a politician, as anybody who has ever listened to Parliamentary question time can attest.

Forget about celebrity cause endorsement and the the Sandcastle-Hugheses of this world. Get suck into the rort that is Greenpeace instead.

40% carbon emission reduction? Where did that number get magicked up from? Where's the scientific analysis that supports that figure? Where's the economic analysis that clearly outlines what that means for every man, woman and child alive in New Zealand in 2020?

The government produces data produced by reputable analysts like NIWA and Infometrics, and Greenpeace says that's bullshit.

I know what bullshit is, but what's Greenpeace?

You yourself have decended into an ad

It is certainly not a membership-driven organisation whose policy making is transparent to its paying "members" and which is accountable to those same members.

If Greenpeace was a membership-based organisation, then a couple of busloads of people could rock up to an Annual General Meeting (which it doesn't have) and do serious democratic stuff, like voting off directors or even winding the organisation up.

That can't be done, because Greenpeace International is a multinational corporate conglomerate, and its operations in New Zealand are a franchise. It is the McDonald's of activism, in more ways than one.

It is an organisation that is more concerned with commercial endeavour than it is about the environment. It uses science extremely selectively (e.g. climate change and genetic modification) and formulates its policy lines at an advertising agency.

Cheryl West may genuinely care about the environment and the future of this planet, but she is nothing more than a pawn in Greenpeace's New Zealand fundraising activities.

You yourself have merged a rebuttal of the legitimacy of a call for large-scale policy change relating to the planets environmental state, with an ad hominem attack of your own on Greenpeace's involvement in that message

[RC1]

who is Keisha ??

[NDORFN]

Supposed climate change due to exhaust emmisions aside... what about air-quality? Any of you dudes consider that?

[Hitcher]

You yourself have merged a rebuttal of the legitimacy of a call for large-scale policy change relating to the planets environmental state, with an ad hominem attack of your own on Greenpeace's involvement in that message

Given that I set out to do that, I am pleased that you have seized upon my intent.

I am not questioning the need for mitigations to carbon emissions and other measures designed to reduce humankind's dependence on fossil fuels. Indeed the New Zealand government has done much already and has a cunning plan in mind to do more.

Greenpeace wants 40% reductions, with no intellectual rigor or scientific analysis to justify that position. They should put up or shut up. Unfortunately they will do neither.

And an attack on a legal entity rather than on a specific person cannot be ad hominem. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[short-circuit]

Given that I set out to do that, I am pleased that you have seized upon my intent.


And an attack on a legal entity rather than on a specific person cannot be ad hominem. Look it up if you don't believe me.


1. Yeah sure

2. Semantics - play the ball not the man [sic.]

[RantyDave]

changing the way society works fundamentally needs to happen to prevent us drowning in our own filth
Do you really *not* think this is the case?

You're not going to drown in your filth. Your children won't drown in their filth either but your grandchildren are going to have to either live with or clear up whatever shit we leave behind. The Oceans may be entirely lifeless. Whole countries way well be abandoned. Wars may be fought over fertile soil instead of petrochemicals, power or money. The patent on the few plants than *can* grow on the crap left behind may be owned by a few unthinkably powerful organisations. The cost of food for a family would exceed all other household costs by a factor of two.

We are well on the way to *all* of these actually happening and if it does it will be directly the fault of two groups of people: Those who thought is was a lefty pinko plot to take away our god given right to drive fast and kill towelheads; and those who believed it but did nothing.

So, up to you man - do you want future generations to regard us as the people who shat all over the planet while preoccupied with brangelina's latest antics, or as the generation who realised what shallow self-obsessed fucktards the boomers have been and starting putting things right.

Dave

[mowgli]

Hey, don't get me wrong I'm sold on the need to clean up our act and live more sustainably. It's the alarmist, bull shit stories about armagedon just around the corner that piss me off. The science is not settled, nor can it ever be.

[rainman]

That this is a political debate not an environmental one.

Perhaps I should have been more specific: what factual evidence do you base that view on?



It is certainly not a membership-driven organisation whose policy making is transparent to its paying "members" and which is accountable to those same members.

If Greenpeace was a membership-based organisation, then a couple of busloads of people could rock up to an Annual General Meeting (which it doesn't have) and do serious democratic stuff, like voting off directors or even winding the organisation up.

That can't be done, because Greenpeace International is a multinational corporate conglomerate...


Oh pffft. They're far from ideal as an organisation, but that's no reason to lie about them. I expected better from you, Hitcher.



Greenpeace International Board of Directors

The Board of Directors of Greenpeace International (Stichting Greenpeace Council) consists of seven members. Its role is to approve the annual budget of Greenpeace International and the audited accounts, and to appoint and supervise the Greenpeace International Executive Director.

The International Board is also responsible for monitoring the operations and activities of the wider organisation; deciding organisational policy; approving the start of new campaigns and new national offices; ratifying the Greenpeace International Annual General Meeting (AGM) decisions; granting the right to use the Greenpeace trademark; and for determining the voting status of national and regional offices in the AGM.

International Board members are elected for a three-year period by representatives from the National / Regional Offices at the AGM, and may be re-elected for a subsequent term. The International Board reports annually to the Greenpeace International AGM.

Greenpeace International Annual General Meeting

Each National / Regional Office is also governed by a board of directors. These are usually elected by a voting membership of volunteers and activists, who are firmly rooted within the local environmental communities and are well positioned to represent the wider public in influencing Greenpeace decisions and policy.

Each National / Regional Office Board appoints a representative to the Greenpeace International Annual General Meeting, called a Trustee. In this way, the AGM is effectively the supervisory body for the organisation as a whole. The Trustees elect the International Board, the legally responsible entity.

Key responsibilities of the AGM include:

* To establish and uphold the core principles of the organisation
* To elect or remove the International Board
* To approve the opening of new Greenpeace offices
* To approve the annual Greenpeace International budget ceiling
* To identify issues of strategic significance to be addressed by the organisation

These issues are annually debated and voted on by the International Board and the National/Regional Office Trustees at the AGM. The Greenpeace International Board determines the voting status of National / Regional offices at the AGM based upon offices meeting a set of detailed criteria on financial solvency and independence, and adherence to internationally accepted good governance and financial management standards.

Didya see that "AGM" word there?

[pzkpfw]

As much as the Climate Change debate has been turned into a noble crusade, that changing the way society works fundamentally needs to happen to prevent us drowning in our own filth, we deserve EVERYTHING we get when we start listening and reacting to the scripted blitherings of a chick who rode a digital whale.

I haven't seen that movie yet.

Did you just give away the ending?

[mowgli]

It's all in the way the message is being delivered.

Consider being pulled over by a cop and finding your WOF has expired by a few weeks. Now consider two responses.


Cop 1 reminds you that the WOF is an important check for yours and others' safety and suggests you call into VTNZ on the way home. You agree and dutifully do as suggested.

Cop 2 proceeds to berate you for riding without a WOF. "Don't you know your bike could fail catestropically launching you through the windscreen of some poor family killing all but the baby in the back seat who now has to live with his aunt and the knowledge that you killed his parents simply because you wouldn't fork out $50 to get a WOF....." Five minutes later, as boredom sets in, you make some remark and whammo, you get fined.


Cop 1 is the voice of reason and commonsense. I understand where he's coming from because his message is truthful and accurate. So I agree to play my part in what I know is for the greater good.

To me Cop 2 is the climate change brigade. I have no respect for them because they demonstrate no respect for me. It pisses me off that when they ultimately get their way I will be fined.

When the UN IPCC was set up the chair was quoted as saying something along the lines of "the truth will not be enough". Basically he was admitting that if they told it like it was then no one would take any notice. This is perhaps where Gore got his inspiration from. So from the outset the message has been spun up in apocalyptic proportions and this has attracted a semi-religious response from the uneducated masses.

I don't believe that armagedon is but a few generations away. I do believe that we should take steps to live in harmony with the planet in perpetuity.

[MIXONE]

I'm surprised at both the level of emotion this "News" item sparked in me and the fact that I managed to write something that wasn't laden with discombobulated invective.

I think I agree with you but need a dictionary to find out...

[Creeping Death]

Bring back free shopping bags.:cool:

[mowgli]

Perhaps I should have been more specific: what factual evidence do you base that view on?
This website offers objective opinions on climate change. I've seen a few and read around but this one is the most balanced in my view. It's the one I've bookmarked and refer others to. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

The new world order theory is drawn from parallels between the emissions trading scheme (essentially trading in nothing) and the activities of Enron and Gore. I read Air Con (Wishart) when it came out and viewed his theories in the later chapters with skepticism. Then last week I watched "Smartest People in the Room", a documentary into the collapse of Enron. Considering Gore's relationship with Enron at the time and Enron's aspiration to create a global emissions trading scheme, Gore's actions since (climate change activist) have taken on new meaning for me. There's too much money at stake for people and governments to be doing this out of a sense of charity.

[JimO]

She should stick to acting, that's what she's good at. That is all.





is she, and having babies out of wedlock...fuckem all i say

[Street Gerbil]

who is Keisha ??
A teenage mom.

[Hitcher]

Didya see that "AGM" word there?

For Greenpeace in New Zealand? All you have done is reinforce my proposition that Greenpeace is a multinational conglomerate.

[Hitcher]

A teenage mom.

Not when she's in New Zealand.

[short-circuit]

For Greenpeace in New Zealand? All you have done is reinforce my proposition that Greenpeace is a multinational conglomerate.

Wrong. It's a Non-government Organisation (NGO)

[mynameis]

She should stick to making babies and riding whales.

[Hitcher]

Wrong. It's a Non-government Organisation (NGO)

Somebody warned me about arguing with dwarves on Sundays.

[Street Gerbil]

She should stick to making babies and riding whales.

I'd rather she stick to riding whales. Her daughter is a menace to society (biter). Another one like that would qualify as cruel and unusual collective punishment.

[James Deuce]

Speak for yerself, James. I am pretty sure I'm not thinking what you're thinking.

Besides Key was being an obnoxious and offensive arse, just trying to get a cheap laugh out of a business crowd, and he needed to apologise for that. And he has as much intellectual cred on the issue as Keisha has, or indeed Rodney Hide has.



Wonder why?



Some of us have a moral compass. The evidence of the deleterious effects of our petroleum-based industrial lifestyle are plain to see for all but the most blinkered libertarian "rugged individualists" - whose brains would explode, I think, if they permitted themselves to understand the doctrine of property rights in a more reality-based sense.

Somebody does indeed need to think of the children, and the mess we are leaving them in our relentless quest for flat-screen tellys and other shiny crap toys, and I applaud Keisha and Robyn and Rhys and the others, "slappers" and non-"slappers" alike, that have the guts to do so.

Yes, superstition is definitely an approach that has gained credibility in the face of a culture of excess consumption.

[James Deuce]

Do you really *not* think this is the case?

You're not going to drown in your filth. Your children won't drown in their filth either but your grandchildren are going to have to either live with or clear up whatever shit we leave behind. The Oceans may be entirely lifeless. Whole countries way well be abandoned. Wars may be fought over fertile soil instead of petrochemicals, power or money. The patent on the few plants than *can* grow on the crap left behind may be owned by a few unthinkably powerful organisations. The cost of food for a family would exceed all other household costs by a factor of two.

We are well on the way to *all* of these actually happening and if it does it will be directly the fault of two groups of people: Those who thought is was a lefty pinko plot to take away our god given right to drive fast and kill towelheads; and those who believed it but did nothing.

So, up to you man - do you want future generations to regard us as the people who shat all over the planet while preoccupied with brangelina's latest antics, or as the generation who realised what shallow self-obsessed fucktards the boomers have been and starting putting things right.

Dave

I'm surprised and mildly disappointed that you haven't taken to heart other things I've repeatedly said about this issue, and that you've chosen to miseread and misrepresent what I wrote.

You can buy me lunch and we'll have a chat. ;)

I have said, over and over, that the three things EVERY person in EVERY western nation can do to fix the culture of excess consumption are:

1. Travel only on foot.
2. Wear no synthetic clothing.
3. Eat no pre-packaged food.

But this is a motorcycle forum, so I KNOW none of us are prepared to do these things.

Anyone who supports Climate Change Superstition over a reasoned examination of current factual evidence based in Science and the desire to learn more, and who rides a motorcycle, REALLY needs to look at themselves and ask if motorcycles suit their "moral compass". You are kidding yourself if you think that a motorcycle is in an yway economical to produce and own. Just because it uses less resources to build than a car doesn't mean you are reducing the impact of consumer society on the "World" as a whole.

In terms of changing habits, I've stopped commuting by motorcycle and have started using public transport, despite trains in NZ creating more CO2 emissions per kilometer travelled than a motorcycle. I've done it because we'll soon have more efficient trains in Wellington. I'll use the bike when I need to. Need. Or for R&R.

I also eat more fruit, and try to buy food that has been prepared on the premises of wherever I buy it. Little tiny baby steps, but I'm not prepared to put Jim's Dictum of Climate Change into effect because I simply couldn't maintain my current responsibilities. The society I live in isn't geared to supporting partially self-sustaining village communities populated by telecommuters and super-fit athletes.

You guys doing anything different except spouting principle in a motorcycle forum? No?

[Pedrostt500]

The inconveniant truth is man made climate change can't be proved. :banana:

Just because you got knocked up at sixteen does not mean you're informed.

Wow I thought 16yr olds knew it all, and I had just forgotten most things in the last 28 years.

[Winston001]

Hey, don't get me wrong I'm sold on the need to clean up our act and live more sustainably. It's the alarmist, bull shit stories about armagedon just around the corner that piss me off. The science is not settled, nor can it ever be.

So if there is any chance of persuading people that we need to stop polluting, then you and I need to say so. The climate change issue is fundamentally about pollution.

However every time any of us get distracted by minor issues like Keisha, the whole message gets lost in the static.

Heck I've argued (as unemotionally as possible) climate change here for three years and yet the same old shibboleths keep coming back. Conspiracy theories about secret money grabs, Al Gore is a dupe, climate change is natural and inevitable etc. So we needn't stop polluting. Bollocks.

[James Deuce]

Heck I've argued (as unemotionally as possible) climate change here for three years and yet the same old shibboleths keep coming back. Conspiracy theories about secret money grabs, Al Gore is a dupe, climate change is natural and inevitable = lifestyle change is totally unnecessary. Bollocks.

I'd just like to point out that I've never said that, and that while Al Gore IS a dupe, how does sending money overseas help change the climate?

Empirically, climate change is inevitable. How you adapt to it is the key, not how you try to prevent it. Canutism has no place in a rational world.

[Clivoris]

But this is a motorcycle forum, so I KNOW none of us are prepared to do these things.

You guys doing anything different except spouting principle in a motorcycle forum? No?

Ouch. I will have you know that I buy all my hookers and drugs from certified sustainable low carbon footprint sources. Some sacrifices are worth making for my children.

[James Deuce]

Oooo, another point too. We've gone to a fortnightly rubbish pickup, and our wheelie bin is generally only half full, simply by changing our purchasing habits.

I'm trying to do my bit, but I will NOT tolerate fear and superstition spouted by the uninformed on the behalf of an organisation that will fake photographs and videos to establish a position of moral superiority over a Government or Corporate entity.

[rainman]

This website offers objective opinions on climate change. I've seen a few and read around but this one is the most balanced in my view. It's the one I've bookmarked and refer others to. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

Odd site. I will look at it in more depth but it seems at first blush a curious mix between science and spin. I could find several things on pages I browsed that are pretty close to clear bullshit, but the guy has decent scientific credentials, unlike many poster boys of the denier camp. I'll reserve judgement at the moment.

Didn't see him talking NWO, though. You may wish to check your tinfoil hat.


It's all in the way the message is being delivered.

Consider being pulled over by a cop and finding your WOF has expired by a few weeks. Now consider two responses.

[INDENT]Cop 1 reminds you that the WOF is an important check for yours and others' safety and suggests you call into VTNZ on the way home. You agree and dutifully do as suggested.

Try Transition Towns, then - their point is not about any of this being your fault and you being a bad person, but that change is inevitable, and we can use our collective genius to build a genuinely better world - if we try. Works for you?


For Greenpeace in New Zealand? All you have done is reinforce my proposition that Greenpeace is a multinational conglomerate.

Ok, let's give you NZ then:

Greenpeace New Zealand

The governance of Greenpeace NZ has a circular accountability mechanism and a procedure for bringing new people in to the voting system.

The Greenpeace New Zealand Board is elected at an Annual General Meeting. There are 7 members on the Board, which meets four times a year.

The Board ensures that Greenpeace New Zealand’s name and finances are used for what they are intended. They agree on the overall strategic direction and development of the National Office, approve the annual budget and hire the Executive Director.

The Board is voted in by the Voting Assembly, which is a group of up to 45 Greenpeace supporters. The Voting Assembly members are nominated by a Membership Committee and agreed upon at the AGM.

Each year a Membership Committee is established at the AGM, consisting of three Voting Assembly members, one Board member and the NZ Executive Director. The Membership Committee encourages and invites interested Greenpeace supporters to participate in the Voting Assembly.

The Executive Director of Greenpeace New Zealand is employed by the Board. The Executive Director is responsible to the Board for the management of staff, budgets and campaign activities.

Seems they have AGM's too, and a reasonable governance structure for an NGO. But yes, they're an international organisation. Bugger, seems you were wrong. Feel free to admit to letting your anti-green bias get in the way of telling the truth, we're all friends here.


Yes, superstition is definitely an approach that has gained credibility in the face of a culture of excess consumption.

That a rebuttal? Or merely a claim that your anti-AGW position is in some way rational?

[James Deuce]

That a rebuttal? Or merely a claim that your anti-AGW position is in some way rational?

Is that a rebuttal or the old tactic of accusing your opponent in a way that you can't respond without looking like a politician, I mean, tosser?

[Hitcher]

Seems they have AGM's too, and a reasonable governance structure for an NGO. But yes, they're an international organisation. Bugger, seems you were wrong. Feel free to admit to letting your anti-green bias get in the way of telling the truth, we're all friends here.

Thank you for that. I shall turn up with my three busloads of likeminded people (all of whom shall be paid up Greenpeace members) and wind the New Zealand organisation up at its next "AGM" then.

I love the smell of democracy in the morning!

[Mom]

Bring back free shopping bags.:cool:

Funny story about shopping bags...

Went down the road to pick up a few things and left my trusty bag at home. Go to checkout and am asked if I want a bag/we charge now you know? Yepper I know, I will have a bag thanks. Bits and pieces duely placed in my bag, then comes my wine. She selects a green bag for it, I am quick to say, no its alright put it in the other bag, when she reassures me the green bags are free! Cool, put the whole lot in the green bag please.

The supermarket bag thing is a total crock! I have no idea why we got them in the first place, always used to be brown paper bags, or your own. They introduced them, we got used to them, now we have to go back again.

[Street Gerbil]

This Al Gore dude must be a really clever fella. I mean he invented intrawebs, they even coined a term "Algorithm" after him. If he says the sky is falling, we'd better wear hard hats.
But what pisses me off is the hypocrisy. Everybody is suddenly obsessed with CO2 and "carbon footprints". That may be right to some extent, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all (and also allows us nice and comfy +20'C at ground level when we have +20'K two hundred miles from the ground), but lo and behold, CO2 is by far not the most significant greenhouse agent. The significant ones are (1) water vapor and (2) methane. Ok, we cannot cover Hauraki Gulf with cellophane without rightfully being branded morons, and proposal to reduce methane emission would be political suicide (will require dismantling NZ dairy/meat industries). So let's search for the key near the streetlight rather than where we've lost it. Let's go after fukken Carbon Dioxide!!! Never mind plants will eat as much as nature (humankind included) can possibly throw at them. Let's make something that WILL MAKE US FEEL GOOD! I wonder when the global warming will be over, what will be the next scare. New Ice Age? Genetically engineered medicines? Green scaly men?
P.S. It is also interesting to note that humankind is responsible for fractions of one per cent of methane emissions. The biggest source of methane on earth are termites. Oooops.

[rainman]

So if there is any chance of persuading people that we need to stop polluting, then you and I need to say so.

Yup. Let's stop nitpicking and get on with finding solutions.


Thank you for that. I shall turn up with my three busloads of likeminded people (all of whom shall be paid up Greenpeace members) and wind the New Zealand organisation up at its next "AGM" then!

If you can find three busloads of members that will vote for that, fill yer boots. Just don't conscript me, I'm no longer a member.


Is that a rebuttal or the old tactic of accusing your opponent in a way that you can't respond without looking like a politician, I mean, tosser?

James, you're an engima. Reading some of your posts since my last comment, you seem to be somewhat inconsistent. If climate change is inevitable, why would we not spend effort trying both to adapt to it and to change our actions today to avoid it getting worse? Why avoid logically debating the reasons for holding whatever views you do hold, but rather resort to dismissing your adversaries as superstitious? Why would you be so vehemently anti so many well-meaning (but admittedly not optimal) people who are trying what they know to make the world a better place?

You've got NZ perfectionism disease, I think. But I'm not sure. If you weren't on the other end of the country I'd buy you a beer and try to figure out what exactly it is you stand for.

Because it sure as hell ain't obvious from what you've said here.

[James Deuce]

No topic of Global import is black and white and this one is less black and white than most. I'd say we know less about the Earth's climate than we do about the Moon's composition.

[Hitcher]

If you can find three busloads of members that will vote for that, fill yer boots.

So you were never involved with student politics then?

[short-circuit]

So you were never involved with student politics then?

Careful. Remember - the ball not the man.

[Winston001]

I'd just like to point out that I've never said that, and that while Al Gore IS a dupe, how does sending money overseas help change the climate?

Empirically, climate change is inevitable. How you adapt to it is the key, not how you try to prevent it. Canutism has no place in a rational world.

You are a bit of a enigma James. :D You seem to agree that we need to change our (carbon) energy intensive lifestyles and are doing your bit. Its not easy and I'm no more prepared to go back to the soil than anyone else.

But you also get sidetracked (IMHO) by Al Gore, carbon trading, and climatic inevitability. I understanding your frustration that you perceive dishonesty there although I think you are mistaken.

Couple of thoughts. Carbon trading - this is going to cost ordinary people a LOT of money - very unpopular = no votes in it = politically hot potato. So why are govts all over the world signing on in various ways? So they'll lose their political lives??? Or maybe, just maybe, they reluctantly accept hydrocarbon release is killing the planet....??

Climate change is inevitable. Well yes it is. And the world adapts. Manmade contributions amount to about 4% annually which sounds insignificant but over decades it all adds up. And since we've been buring coal and oil since the Industrial Revolution, thats a whole heap of extra carbon in the environment. Stuff that took 600 million years to build up, released in 150 years.

Pretty hard to ignore.

[CookMySock]

It is the domain of those of us Middle Aged and even more experienced to look around and "see" the "decay" in our society...Don't you have anything interesting to do? Need a new bike project?

Steve

[James Deuce]

People aren't going to change the fundamentals of their lifestyle. The only way to do that is for Governments to impoverish their citizens. One of the few places that will work is NZ, because we pretty much roll over and take it.

If the US signs on for extensive Carbon Trading, expect Texas to become a World Super Power fairly quickly.

There is an underlying conceit, a fawning sense of self-importance, that underpins the propaganda of Superstitious Man-Made Climate Change advocates that simply needs a Taupo level eruption to correct. There are a vast array of catastrophic climate change mechanisms that exclude mankind's efforts.

Appeals to the ego of the self-righteous always create a dialectic in which superstition flourishs and rationality is subsumed. We'd be better people to prepare to receive 2 million people from low lying Pacific islands as citzens welcomed with open arms rather than refugees ghettoised by political inaction.

[mowgli]

Odd site. I will look at it in more depth but it seems at first blush a curious mix between science and spin. I could find several things on pages I browsed that are pretty close to clear bullshit, but the guy has decent scientific credentials, unlike many poster boys of the denier camp. I'll reserve judgement at the moment.

Didn't see him talking NWO, though. You may wish to check your tinfoil hat.

Try Transition Towns, then - their point is not about any of this being your fault and you being a bad person, but that change is inevitable, and we can use our collective genius to build a genuinely better world - if we try. Works for you?
The thing I like about that site is that it captures the differences in arguments for and against. Regardless of your personal view you can get a feel for why the other side feels the way they do.

No, he doesn't do NWO. In my post I took responsibility for that myself.

"Transition towns" could work as a bottom up distributed solution (every individual doing his/her part). But the way Kyoto and Copenhagen are going we're not looking at a bottom up solution. We're looking at a global system where revenue is sucked up from the bottom and used appropriately (tui anyone?) on our behalf by those who know best. It'd be like paying the shop to fix your bike and then fixing it yourself :crazy:

[James Deuce]

It'd be like paying the shop to fix your bike and then fixing it yourself :crazy:

Paying the bikeshop for a license to fix it yourself and then paying an hourly rate to the bikeshop whilst fixing your bike as well as buying parts at an inflated rate would be a better analogy.

[rainman]

The biggest source of methane on earth are termites. Oooops.

From the US EPA:

It is estimated that more than 60 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities

Yet more bullshit.

Ferking hell, people, even the Office of the (National) PM's Science Advisory Committee says:

...there is a general agreement that the world is experiencing an overall warming trend...
The vast majority of the world’s climate scientists consider it very likely, based on several lines of evidence, that the current warming trend is of human origin and is associated with increased production of the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ as a result of fossil fuel use, agriculture and deforestation...
the extent of human-induced global warming may be magnified by feedback effects that release even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as the world warms...
Accordingly, the collective wisdom of the scientific community is that action is needed now.



No topic of Global import is black and white and this one is less black and white than most.

True, but no reason to run interference for the denialist mob.


So you were never involved with student politics then?

Actually I was, I just grew up in a country that played fair.


Stuff that took 600 million years to build up, released in 150 years.

That's the nub of the issue, right there.


There is an underlying conceit, a fawning sense of self-importance, that underpins the propaganda of Superstitious Man-Made Climate Change advocates that simply needs a Taupo level eruption to correct. There are a vast array of catastrophic climate change mechanisms that exclude mankind's efforts.

Appeals to the ego of the self-righteous always create a dialectic in which superstition flourishs and rationality is subsumed. We'd be better people to prepare to receive 2 million people from low lying Pacific islands as citzens welcomed with open arms rather than refugees ghettoised by political inaction.

I'm more concerned about the 20 million Aussies, tbh, but help me out here: are you asserting that a belief that climate change is a) real and b) significantly influenced by the actions of mankind is inherently superstitious? If so, why?

Sure we have an overstated sense of our own self-importance - no more so than here in "Godzone" - but are you really arguing against the anthropogenic thesis purely on the basis that it would be arrogant to think we can change the world?

[Street Gerbil]

From the US EPA:
Yet more bullshit.


Ugh, EPA et al refer to the same 2007 IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf). I am too lazy to search for a study discrediting it, but pardon my French, IPCC is a purely political organization. On scientific matters it can be trusted about as far as an average human can toss a sperm whale.

[James Deuce]

superstitious? If so, why?

Sure we have an overstated sense of our own self-importance - no more so than here in "Godzone" - but are you really arguing against the anthropogenic thesis purely on the basis that it would be arrogant to think we can change the world?

No. I simply think that people suck and we're stupid enough to let the suckiest people of all make all the "important" decisions.

The radical "deniers" and the radical "accepters" are as bad as each other, and should be summarily removed from the airwaves.

The single most disappointing issue is that the educators with real knowledge and dawning understanding of the global and Solar System-wide systems that are intertwined in Geophysics have been labelled deniers because "people" are more prepared to believe banal superstition as advice from actors and actresses (professional liars). Most "people" would rather not listen to people with indepth knowledge of glaciers, gravity, tidal systems, vulcanology, electromagnetism and gravity because it's "too hard".

It's widely accepted that the Earth is in a cooling phase and that European Glaciation is precipitated by interupting the Gulf Stream. This happenes when the local upward variations in temperature allow icbergs to escape Hudson Bay and snuff the Gulf Stream out. Then glaciation increases rapidly around the globe as the glaciers covering Europe reflect heat back out into space. Then the glaciers retreat when we shift a bit closer to the Sun and you get floods like the Lake Missoula one 16,000 years ago as ice dams break, reducing the amount of ice on the planet's surface and changing the climate through reducing the albedo effect.

This process is usually caused by a slight variation in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. This process has happened quite often in the last 2 million years (if you're one of those useless evolution advocates) which is coincidentally about how long Homo Sapiens Sapiens family tree has been around.

None of that fits the Global Warming caused by mankind theory so we must ignore it and take advice from actresses. It's really frustrating. People give no credence to orbital fluctuations, solar flare activity, changes in local gravity (a theory gaining credence given the size of insects in the Triassic - they're too big to exist in a "1G' gravity field, their structure is unsupportable at that size and gravity), big giant volcanoes pouting reflective atomised sulphuric acid into the stratosphere which locally changes the albedo effect reflecting heat into space and interupting ocean currents changing climate and food chain composition thousands of miles away.

But Keisha Castle-Hughes has all the answers. Tui. Friggin. Advert.

[vifferman]

...are you asserting that a belief that climate change is a) real and b) significantly influenced by the actions of mankind is inherently superstitious? If so, why?
I believe that climate change is real: there have been HUGE climate changes throughout the Earth's history.
I also believe (as James said earlier) that we know too little about weather and climate to postulate a very simple theory that it's all due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that that is due mainly to human activities.
However (but!) the way we are treating our planet isn't terribly nice and we could do more betterer, and if nothing else, all the bullshit that people are buying into, in typical sheep-lemming fashion means that we are starting to address some of the naughty habits we have.

Interesting that the global climate change industry has become very profitable for many people...

[rainman]

Ugh, EPA et al refer to the same 2007 IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf). I am too lazy to search for a study discrediting it, but pardon my French, IPCC is a purely political organization. On scientific matters it can be trusted about as far as an average human can toss a sperm whale.

Feel free to bring a more credible source for the line of bullshit you were peddling then.


People give no credence to orbital fluctuations, solar flare activity, changes in local gravity (a theory gaining credence given the size of insects in the Triassic - they're too big to exist in a "1G' gravity field, their structure is unsupportable at that size and gravity), big giant volcanoes pouting reflective atomised sulphuric acid into the stratosphere which locally changes the albedo effect reflecting heat into space and interupting ocean currents changing climate and food chain composition thousands of miles away.

But Keisha Castle-Hughes has all the answers. Tui. Friggin. Advert.

I don't believe that's true - most "convinced" people I speak to accept that there are a large range of factors that drive the "natural" climate cycle, but that the disturbances to this by human activities are significant. Because other factors exist doesn't mean that they are the only causes - as 0.5ms logical consideration should hopefully reveal.

And Ms Castle-Hughes, I'm sure, does not claim to have all the answers - but merely to care about the future sufficiently to get off her arse and try lobby this no-hoper government of ours to collectively grow a pair and do it's bit to find some solutions (adaptations, preventions, whatever). Rather than offer 10% conditional on everyone else doing 30-40%. Or pontificate here on how it;s all a grand conspiracy/plot by the evil govvermint to create the NWO/&lt;insert pet denialist soundbite here &gt;



Interesting that the global climate change industry has become very profitable for many people...

As the saying goes: "Fascinating. But irrelevant".

[The Pastor]

What the hell?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2756653/Key-makes-green-peace-with-Keisha

So an uneducated actress who struck it lucky as a child and then proceeded to screw up every opportunity that lucky break created for her, now has the intellectual fortitude to enter a debate on climate change and expect an apology from the PM when he says what we're all thinking? She has an opinion, nothing more. We all know what opinions are worth.

It is the domain of those of us Middle Aged and even more experienced to look around and "see" the "decay" in our society, but this bullshit is up there on the bullshit-o-meter right next to the Toyota Prius.

I have a friend who worked for NIWA for many, many years. He manages Geophysical Surveys using many scientific disciplines and is trusted to coordinate the activities of civilian and military data collection efforts from below the sea to 100 miles out, to the very edge of space, across the resources of many countries.

As for the argument that the climate has never changed this quickly? Fairy tale. We have at least ONE episode called the K-T boundary where most plants and animals are represented by a thin, black line of carbon deposits. No one knows why, though there are many theories.

It was he who suggested the technique of using random unreferenced numbers in any Climate Change debate I entered into, just to demonstrate how much fun making stuff up is when people know no different. (Awesome fun until being completely busted by Badjelly.) He has maps on his wall at home, showing the results of the last big survey he worked on. Sea Level isn't uniform. There are "craters" in the surface of the sea, local distortions caused by magnetic field distortions, the make up of the water itself, tidal effects, and undersea activity. Some of these craters are 200m deep. Yet no one takes him seriously when he suggests that we simply don't have enough data to predict weather 48 hours hence, let alone long reaching climactic change as the result of human activity. To this end he suggested stepping up the efforts to collect more data to develop an empirically based model. More funding goes to lobby groups in the US who are pushing Al Gore's distorted message than goes into global climate data collection.

Point a bunch of Kiwis at some slappers on the telly though, and we're all "signing up" because of the "children". Won't somebody think of the "children".

As much as the Climate Change debate has been turned into a noble crusade, that changing the way society works fundamentally needs to happen to prevent us drowning in our own filth, we deserve EVERYTHING we get when we start listening and reacting to the scripted blitherings of a chick who rode a digital whale.
so you just want to hurt the earth and throw it away? we must act NOW if we wanna save it.

[Skyryder]

As for the argument that the climate has never changed this quickly? Fairy tale. We have at least ONE episode called the K-T boundary where most plants and animals are represented by a thin, black line of carbon deposits. No one knows why, though there are many theories.

The most accepted theory for the cause of the KT boundry is asteroid impact due to the high of level iridium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93T_boundary

The evidence for the Alvarez impact theory is supported by chondritic meteorites and asteroids which have an iridium concentration of ~455 parts per billion,[6] much higher than ~0.3 parts per billion typical of the Earth's crust.[4] Chromium isotopic anomalies found in Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary sediments are similar to that of an asteroid or a comet composed of carbonaceous chondrites. Shocked quartz granules and tektite glass spherules, indicative of an impact event, are also common in the K–T boundary, especially in deposits from around the Caribbean. All of these constituents are embedded in a layer of clay, which the Alvarez team interpreted as the debris spread all over the world by the impact.

If true and the Alvarez theory seems conclusive that the sudden climate change was by asteroid impact then the speed of the current climate change is unprecedented and man made.

The other theory that has some credibility is the Deccan Trapps but generly this does not carry the same credibility as the impact theory

Either way once trapped methane starts riseing from the ocean floor in earnest, the cause of the climate change will be academic.

The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic. Figuratively speaking, the erupting region "boils over," ejecting a large amount of methane and other gases (e.g., CO2, H2S) into the atmosphere, and flooding large areas of land. Whereas pure methane is lighter than air, methane loaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (and losing water as rain). The air-methane mixture is explosive at methane concentrations between 5% and 15%; as such mixtures form in different locations near the ground and are ignited by lightning, explosions and conflagrations destroy most of the terrestrial life, and also produce great amounts of smoke and of carbon dioxide. Firestorms carry smoke and dust into the upper atmosphere, where they may remain for several years; the resulting darkness and global cooling may provide an additional kill mechanism. Conversely, carbon dioxide and the remaining methane create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming. The outcome of the competition between the cooling and the warming tendencies is difficult to predict.

and with bit of good news I'm off for a break.

Stay sharp stay cool and most of all stay alive.

Skyryder

[Shadows]

is she

Well having not seen the movie I'm fucked if I know really.

[Winston001]

I believe that climate change is real: there have been HUGE climate changes throughout the Earth's history.

And therefore it is sensible to take precautions - build above sea-level, protect our fresh water, keep toxins out of soil.


.....we know too little about weather and climate to postulate a very simple theory that it's all due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that that is due mainly to human activities.

Nothing simple about anthropomorphic global warming. Its extremely complex and deals with carbon isotopes and compounds formed in air and water. Furthermore the science involves both organic and inorganic carbon which requires commentators to understand some chemistry. Easier to simply say it isn't happening......:eek:



However the way we are treating our planet isn't terribly nice and we could do more betterer, and if nothing else, all the bullshit that people are buying into, in typical sheep-lemming fashion means that we are starting to address some of the naughty habits we have.

Agreed. The man-made GW dispute is irrelevant if we simply see we are polluting the planet. A simple example - acidification of the ocean which is caused by dissolved CO2. This is happening and measurable. Shell-fish can't make shells in acid.


Interesting that the global climate change industry has become very profitable for many people...

I keep coming across this sort of thing. I do not know one single person locally who will make money from this "industry". There are always a few people who make money out of potential disaster - but not millions of people, and certainly not enough to make politicians risk losing votes. Raising taxes, paying for carbon tonnes, none of this gets votes.

Arguably real estate agents stand to make money by selling high and dry property as buyers flee coasts - are they part of the "industry"? Undertakers will thrive too. None of this equals a conspiracy.

[Swoop]

Yet no one takes him seriously when he suggests that we simply don't have enough data to predict weather 48 hours hence, let alone long reaching climactic change
Quite true. We see the efforts of the "professional" weather people every night at the end of the news. Short term forecasting is "tricky", but at least a few "experts" know everything about the long term future of the planet.

I would really like to see Greenpeace putting their efforts into the packaging industry, and working on cutting back the copious amounts of over-packaging that we consumers are subject to.
The supermarket plastic carrier bag is a mere drop in the ocean, in comparison.


Interesting that the global climate change industry has become very profitable for many people...
Global warming = Global taxing.
There are a lot of people making a shitload of $$$'s from this con-job.

[Winston001]

Global warming = Global taxing.
There are a lot of people making a shitload of $$$'s from this con-job.

Fair enough. Can you explain who these people are and how they are doing it?