2013 in review

January 1, 2014

The clever WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 370,000 times in 2013. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 16 days for that many people to see it. . . 

The top referring sites were:

  1. nominister.blogspot.co.nz
  2. keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz
  3. kiwiblog.co.nz
  4. nzconservative.blogspot.co.nz
  5. twitter.com

The most prolific commenters were:

  • 1 TraceyS 1383 comments
  • 2 robertguyton 811 comments
  • 3 Andrei 722 comments
  • 4 Viv 629 comments
  • 5 Armchair Critic 448 comments

Thank you to the people who write the blogs which refer readers here, the people who visit and the people who comment.

Click here to see the complete report.


2012 in review

January 1, 2013

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

About 55,000 tourists visit Liechtenstein every year. This blog was viewed about 300,000 times in 2012. If it were Liechtenstein, it would take about 5 years for that many people to see it. Your blog had more visits than a small country in Europe!

The top referring sites were:

  1. nominister.blogspot.co.nz
  2. kiwiblog.co.nz
  3. nzconservative.blogspot.co.nz
  4. keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz
  5. asianinvasion2006.blogspot.co.nz (Cactus Kate)

The post which got the most comments (51) was water quality concern for all.

The people who made the most comments were:

Robert Guyton # 1 and # 5 is the same person, I think he gets two spots because some comments are linked to his blog and others aren’t.

Thank you all for visiting, those who link and hat tip from their blogs and those who join the conversation.

I appreciate your comments, whether or not I agree with them. A conversation among several is far more interesting than a one-woman diatribe.

I especially appreciate that almost everyone debates the topic and critiques arguments rather than resorting to personal criticism.

I think I had to delete only one comment last year and only rarely had to take a deep breath.

And thanks to WordPress for the blogging platform and excellent service on the very rare occasions I’ve needed help.

Click here to see the complete report.


Should it be Redpeace?

February 20, 2012

A criticism of many green parties and organisations is that they are watermelons with a green shell covering a red heart.

Dr Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, provides support for that contention in his book Confessions of  Greenpeace dropout: the making of a sensible environmentalist.

You could call me a Greenpeace dropout, but that is not an entirely  accurate description of how or why I left the organization 15 years  after I helped create it. I’d like to think Greenpeace left me, rather  than the other way around, but that too is not entirely correct.

The truth is Greenpeace and I underwent divergent evolutions. I  became a sensible environmentalist; Greenpeace became increasingly  senseless as it adopted an agenda that is antiscience, antibusiness, and downright antihuman. . .

While it might be anti-business, Greenpeace is not above exploiting people or using dubious commercial methods to raise money and lure new recruits.

Those people, usually young, who badger you to join up in the street are on commission and only get paid if and when those they sign up don’t pull out within the few day’s grace period in which they’re permitted to do so after joining.

. . . During the early 1980s two things happened that altered my  perspective on the direction in which environmentalism, in general, and  Greenpeace, in particular, were heading. The first was my introduction  to the concept of sustainable development at a global meeting of  environmentalists. The second was the adoption of policies by my fellow  Greenpeacers that I considered extremist and irrational. These two  developments would set the stage for my transformation from a radical  activist into a sensible environmentalist.

In 1982, the United Nations held a conference in Nairobi to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the first UN Environment Conference in  Stockholm, which I had also attended. I was one of 85 environmental  leaders from around the world who were invited to craft a statement of our  collective goals for environmental protection. It quickly became  apparent there were two nearly opposite perspectives in the room—the  antidevelopment  perspective of environmentalists from wealthy industrialized countries  and the prodevelopment perspective of environmentalists from the poor  developing countries.

As one developing country activist put it, taking a stand against  development in his woefully poor country would get him laughed out of  the room. It was hard to argue with his position. A well-fed person has  many problems, a hungry person has but one. The same is true for  development, or lack of it. We could see the tragic reality of poverty  on the outskirts of our Kenyan host city. Those of us from  industrialized countries recognized we had to be in favor of some kind  of development, preferably the kind that didn’t ruin the environment in  the process. Thus the concept of sustainable development was born.

This was when I first fully realized there was another step beyond  pure environmental activism. The real challenge was to figure out how to take the environmental values we had helped create and weave them into  the social and economic fabric of our culture. This had to be done in  ways that didn’t undermine the economy and were socially acceptable. It  was clearly a question of careful balance, not dogmatic adherence to a  single principle. . .

It is rank hypocrisy for people from developed countries with all the benefits of first world economies and the first world infrastructure and services that supports to tell people in poor countries development is bad.

Sustainable development is the balance between economic, environmental and social requirements. Its proponents aren’t anti-business or anti-people and they welcome science because it provides evidence-based information and solutions rather than greenwash which might look fine but might do no good and at times causes harm to the environment.

An example of this is recycling. It certainly reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills but the environmental cost of transporting and processing is sometimes greater than that of dumping.

. . .  By the early 1980s a  majority of the public, at least in the Western democracies, agreed with us that the environment should be taken into account in all our  activities. When most people agree with you it is probably time to stop  beating them over the head and sit down with them to seek solutions to  our environmental problems. 

At the same time I chose to become less militant and more diplomatic, my Greenpeace colleagues became more extreme and intolerant of  dissenting opinions from within.

In the early days we debated complex issues openly and often. It was a wonderful group to engage with in wide-ranging environmental policy  discussions. The intellectual energy in the organization was infectious. We frequently disagreed about specific issues, yet our ultimate vision  was largely shared. Importantly, we strove to be scientifically  accurate. For years this had been the topic of many of our internal  debates. I was the only Greenpeace activist with a PhD in ecology, and  because I wouldn’t allow exaggeration beyond reason I quickly earned the nickname “Dr. Truth.” It wasn’t always meant as a compliment. Despite  my efforts, the movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the  mid-1980s, just as society was adopting the more reasonable items on our environmental agenda.

Ironically, this retreat from science and logic was partly a response to society’s growing acceptance of environmental values. Some activists simply couldn’t make the transition from confrontation to consensus; it was as if they needed a common enemy. When a majority of people decide  they agree with all your reasonable ideas the only way you can remain  confrontational and antiestablishment is to adopt ever more extreme  positions, eventually abandoning science and logic altogether in favor  of zero-tolerance policies. . .

We have only one world and most people agree on the importance of looking after it. There is however, disagreement on the how and finding a way to do it in a way which is not anti-business or anti-people is much more likely to succeed than the radical recipe promoted by red-greens.

To a  considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalization than with science or ecology. I remember visiting our Toronto office in 1985 and  being surprised at how many of the new recruits were sporting army  fatigues and red berets in support of the Sandinistas.

I don’t blame them for seizing the opportunity. There was a lot of  power in our movement and they saw how it could be turned to serve their agendas of revolutionary change and class struggle. But I differed with them because they were extremists who confused the issues and the  public about the nature of our environment and our place in it. To this  day they use the word industry as if it were a swear word. The same goes for multinational, chemical, genetic, corporate, globalization, and a  host of other perfectly useful terms. Their propaganda campaign is aimed at promoting an ideology that I believe would be extremely damaging to  both civilization and the environment. . .

Those perfectly useful terms are almost always used with negative connotations by radical environmentalists and their ideology is dangerous.

. . . The main purpose of this book is to establish a new approach to  environmentalism and to define sustainability as the key to achieving  environmental goals. This requires embracing humans as a positive  element in evolution rather than viewing us as some kind of mistake. The celebrated Canadian author Farley Mowat has described humans as a “fatally flawed species.” This kind of pessimism may be politically  correct today, but it is terribly self-defeating. Short of mass suicide  there doesn’t seem to be an appropriate response. I believe we should  celebrate our existence and constantly put our minds toward making the  world a better place for people and all the other species we share it  with. . .

Unlike those he criticise, Moore is optimistic about the future of the world and people’s place in it.

He also has some suggestions on what we could do to protect and enhance the environment at no great cost to the economy or people:

• We should be growing more trees and using more wood, not  cutting fewer trees and using less wood as Greenpeace and its allies  contend. Wood is the most important renewable material and  energy resource.

• Those countries that have reserves of potential hydroelectric  energy should build the dams required to deliver that energy. There is  nothing wrong with creating more lakes in this world.

• Nuclear energy is essential for our future energy supply,  especially if we wish to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. It has  proven to be clean safe, reliable, and cost-effective.

• Geothermal heat pumps, which too few people know about, are far  more important and cost-effective than either solar panels or wind mills as a source of renewable energy. They should be required in all new  buildings unless there is a good reason to use some other technology for heating, cooling, and making hot water.

• The most effective way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is  to encourage the development of technologies that require less or no  fossil fuels to operate. Electric cars, heat pumps, nuclear and  hydroelectric energy, and biofuels are the answer, not cumbersome  regulatory systems that stifle economic activity.

• Genetic science, including genetic engineering, will improve  nutrition and end malnutrition, improve crop yields, reduce the  environmental impact of farming, and make people and the environment  healthier.

• Many activist campaigns designed to make us fear useful chemicals are based on misinformation and unwarranted fear.

• Aquaculture, including salmon and shrimp farming, will be one of  our most important future sources of healthy food. It will also take  pressure off depleted wild fish stocks and will employ millions of  people productively.

• There is no cause for alarm about climate change. The climate is  always changing. Some of the proposed “solutions” would be far worse  than any imaginable consequence of global warming, which will likely be  mostly positive. Cooling is what we should fear.

• Poverty is the worst environmental problem. Wealth and urbanization will stabilize the human population. Agriculture should be mechanized  throughout the developing world. Disease and malnutrition can be largely eliminated by the application of modern technology. Health care,  sanitation, literacy, and electrification should be provided to  everyone.

• No whale or dolphin should be killed or captured anywhere, ever.  This is one of my few religious beliefs. They are the only species on  earth whose brains are larger than ours and it is impossible to kill or  capture them humanely.

Hat tip: Kiwiblog and NZ Conservative

 


2011 in blogging

January 2, 2012

One of the services WordPress supplies for its bloggers is an annual report at year’s end.

London Olympic Stadium holds 80,000 people. This blog was viewed about 330,000times in 2011. If it were competing at London Olympic Stadium, it would take about 4 sold-out events for that many people to see it.

In 2011, there were 2,419 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 8,791 posts. There were 93 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 7mb. That’s about 2 pictures per week.

The busiest day of the year was October 20th with 1,947 views . . .

The top referring sites were:

nominister.blogspot.com

kiwiblog.co.nz

nzconservative.blogspot.com

keepingstock.blogspot.com

asianinvasian.blogspot.com (Cactus Kate).

The most active commenters were: Robert Guyton 1008 comments, Gravedodger 604 commments; Andrei 539 comments; PDM 311 comments and Inventory 2 249 comments.

Thank you WordPress and all readers and commenters.

UPDATE: Open Parachute has December’s sitemeter rankings and Whaleoil is now #1 with  260294 unique visitors last month.


WordPress still inaccessible for some

March 6, 2011

Andrei at NZ Conservative is finding that yesterday’s problem accessing WordPress blogs is still going on.

The cause of the problem is DDoS attacks (which is beyond my limited understanding of technology to explain).

I can’t get my own or any other WordPress blogs on my phone but haven’t found any problems accessing any of them on my home computer of my farmer’s and my laptops.

I can also read updated RSS feeds of posts from WordPress blogs on Google Reader.

Not everyone is having access problems. There haven’t been many comments this weekend but the number of visitors is slightly ahead of the number last Saturday and Sunday.


Did you see the one about

September 23, 2010

Same planet, different world Oswald Bastable on bookless homes.

Mapping internet sensation stereotpypes – Lucia Maria has found some new world wit.

Muppets in blue goNZo Freakpower casts the blue end of the blogosphere as Muppets.

How did the poor come to be poor – Anti Dismal on why understanding wealth matters more than understanding poverty.

Building inpsectors – Credo Quia Absurdum Est on why practical experience beats the a bloke with a folder.

Reaching Atip - Cactus Kate explains fashion week.

Be careful Gareth - Patrick Smellie on the fine line between integrity and hubris.


Did you see the one about . . .

August 17, 2010

Bookworm - creative photography at Mila’s Daydreams. (Hat tip: Beaties Book Blog).

I love my job – RivettingKate Taylor on the joys of her work.

The blogosphere prevails - Zen Tiger marks his 1000th post at New Zealand Conservative with some thoughts on blogging (a bit late with this one).

It’s inappropriate to be judgemental - Karl du Fresne on the ubiquitous prissy euphemism.

Round numbers are over rated: celebrating 191 posts - Darcy Cowan at Sci Blogs does the numbers.

Myths of socialism # 1 – Macdoctor in the first of a series countering the left’s mistakes.


Did you see the one about . . .

July 25, 2010

Chinese Communism – Offsetting Behaviour on attitdues to trade.

“I’m going to kill him,” she shouts – Private Secret Diary spells out signwriting flaws.

Metropolitan police still ‘discriminating against clowns’ - from  News Biscuit- a recent find and very, very funny.

Analysis of a knee jerk with example – Andrei at NZ Conservative on the biology of politics.

Moose at sunrise – Robert Guyton finds art on the beach.

Lauraine Jacobs on restaurant reviews – Quote Unquote worries that chaos and confusion will follow.


Right to die gives right to kill

July 23, 2010

When proponents of euthanasia talk about the right to die they omit to explain that it involves other people and would also give the right to kill.

Would health professionals who are bound by the Hippocratic oath to do no harm want to do that?  Is it fair to ask them to? Even if the answers to those questions were affirmative, how could we be sure decisions would always be based on medical and humanitarian grounds?

Macdoctor points out the dangers of a financial incentive to hasten the end of dying patients.

This brings me to the central problem I have with human euthanasia.

It is a cheap cop-out.

Least I be called insensitive in the face of Dr Pollock’s eloquent and  emotional letter, let me say that I say this entirely in the context of medical practice. I do not consider Dr. Pollock’s desire to die rather than suffer a “cop-out”, I consider the legalisation of euthanasia to be a cheap (and nasty) alternative to adequate palliative care. And therein lies the chief dilemma.

Governments being what they are, as soon as euthanasia is legalised, there will immediately be a subtle drive to euthanase dying people.

 Would it be possible to have safe guards that ensure that those who wanted to opt for voluntary euthanasia  could without the danger that others would feel pressured into it?  They may feel they have to opt for an early death, not for their own sakes but that of their family and friends or even because they felt they were using scarce resources and wasting the time of the people caring for them.

Most of us think if we were severely disabled we would opt to forgo treatment, but would we?

Theodore Dalrymple writes of a man whose life support was about to be turned off until he blinked:

Mr Rudd, 43, was injured in a motor accident. He was paralysed and thought to be severely brain damaged. . .

However, taken to the neuro-intensive care unit at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, he was kept alive by the miracle of modern technology, without which he would undoubtedly have died.

His close relatives and doctors thought that the life he now had was not worth living. They prepared to turn off the machines keeping him alive. They thought this is what he would have wanted. It is also what most of us probably would have thought too.

At the last hour it was noticed he was able to move his eyes and that by doing so he could communicate a little. And what he communicated to everyone’s surprise was that he wanted to continue to live, even the life that he was now living. In other words his relatives and the doctors, with the best intentions in the world, had been mistaken. . .

That would have been a fatal mistake.

Dalrymple goes on to explain about Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) and how that measure could influence treatment.

Health policies are often decided on the basis of QALYs. Interestingly and alarmingly the QALY assumes that the life of a quadriplegic (someone paralysed from the neck down) not only has no value for the person who lives it but has a negative value for him: that is to say such a person would rather be dead and in fact would be better off if he were dead.

Whatever they thought before they were paralysed, however, most quadriplegics think their lives are worth living.

With a few exceptions, such as the young rugby player who was accompanied by his parents to Switzerland to be able to be given assistance in suicide, they don’t want to die. The fact that before they were paralysed most quadriplegics thought (as most people, including health economists think) that life as a quadriplegic would not be worth living but change their minds once they are quadriplegic, has very important implications for the idea of living wills.

In fact it invalidates the very idea. It is impossible to decide in advance what would be intolerable for you until you experience it.

When discussing this situation most of us think we would choose death rather than a life with severe impairments, but how can we know how great the desire for life, or death, would be until we are faced with making a choice?

When euthanasia is spoken of, it’s usually described as providing a merciful end, but would we feel the need to hasten our deaths if we could have a painless and natural one instead?

Dalrymple raises another problem. If we did legalise the right to kill, where would we draw the line and how would we stop it moving?

One of the problems with assisted suicide and euthanasia is what the Americans call mission creep. We live in non-discriminatory times: why should only certain categories of patients have the benefit of what Keats called “easeful death”? Indeed, when euthanasia was legalised in Holland it was not long before a psychiatrist killed a patient with supposedly intractable depression.

Why should only the terminally ill and the quadriplegic have the right to assisted suicide or euthanasia? Do other people not suffer equally, at least in their own estimation?  An old saying goes that hard cases make bad law and it is also true that there are pitiful cases in which a quick death would seem a merciful release.

Unfortunately it is well within the capacity of carers to make suffering unbearable and therefore death seem the preferable, quick and merciful option. And if people have a right to death on demand then someone has a duty to provide it, otherwise the right is worthless, a dead letter.

Who is this person who has such a duty? Will we strike off doctors for refusing to kill their patients? This is something that the indomitable Mr Rudd would not approve of and I think he deserves to be heard.

Euthanasia is not the same as choosing to forgo treatment. It is not passively letting someone die or even giving pain relief which might have the side effect of hastening death. It is actively killing and if we give the right to do that how can we be sure it wouldn’t be misused?

Rather than agitating for the right to die we should be agitating for the right to live with dignity and without pain.

The right to die sounds like control is in the hands of the patient and I struggle to see any difference between that and suicide.  But euthanasia is much more than that. In legalising the right to die we’d also be legalising the right to kill.

UPDATE:

Lucia Maria aat NZ Conservative has similar concerns in  euthanasia raises it’s ugly head again.

Dim Post is cautiously in favour of legalising euthanasie but also sees the dangers in death panels.

goNZo Freakpower supports legalisation in any last requests,

So do Brian Edwards in the doctor and the right to die and Richard McGrath at Not PC in Cancers – personal and parliamentary.

Lindsay Mitchell asks what happend to the death with dignity bill?


Did you see the one about . . .

June 26, 2010

 Going post-espresso with Chemex – Half Pie takes a scientific approach to coffee.

The tyrrany of power point - Alison Campbell at Sciblogs on the pluses and minuses of technological assistance in communication.

All White on the Night - Opposable Thumb takes us down several pegs.

Blocking out the still small voice – NZ Conservative on the necessity of boredom and also Churchill become non-smoker via air brush –  fags (of the tobacco kind) are censored but S&M isn’t.

The decline of civilisation – Not PC on questions. While there Roll it experimental housing- University of Karlsruhe is also worth a look.

A blog of one’s own - Schroedinger’s Tabby turns two.

Public Opinion - Quote Unquote on modern media.

Houston we have . . . . a lot of snow – Laughy Kate reports on gameshow recruits.

 At the end of the earth  Latitude 44 muses on cultural identity


Govt to Govt to get NZ apples in to Australia

April 15, 2010

Orchardists have been cautious about celebrating the news that the World Trade Organisation ruled in New Zealand’s favour in the dispute over access to Australia for our apples.

The caution is because Australia could appeal the ruling.

However Trans Tasman reports that a government to government initiative might ensure the ruling is upheld.

The Trans Tasman Political Letter says NZ is looking for a way to
settle the apple export row at Government level, after NZ’s WTO
victory. It notes NZ may have won its case in the WTO court
against Australia’s barriers on the sale of NZ apples in the
Australian market, but no-one on this side of the Tasman believes
the battle has been finally won.  

As Trans-Tasman reported earlier this week, The WTO panel has
comprehensively rejected the Aust argument, and its use of
quarantine regulation as a de facto trade barrier. Clearly the
issue should now be settled at the political level, and both
Govts may have thought it a good idea to keep the WTO report
under wraps until after the Federal election.  

Trans Tasman says each Govt received the interim report at the
end of last month, and Canberra could be wary of unleashing the
fury of Aust. Apple growers in the run-up to the election.
However with a Labor Govt in power, the influence of the apple
growers mainly in seats held by Liberal or National MPs may be
less dominant. Theoretically,the Rudd Govt should be swayed more
by the interests of consumers. The NZ Govt has been looking at
how to negotiate a settlement, based on the WTO’s panel interim
ruling.  

TransTasman says Trade Minister Tim Groser is expected to explore
what shape a fair and final resolution could take when he talks
with his counterpart Simon Crean on the sidelines of the Cairns
Group meeting in Punta del Este early next week.  

However Trans Tasman adds NZ knows from past experience, even
when the science has been overwhelmingly conclusive, the Aust
bureaucracy has always found a way to frustrate an outcome in
NZ’s favour. With the full weight of the WTO swinging behind NZ,
Aust will risk making itself a laughing stock preaching free
trade out of one corner of its mouth while it practises
protectionism out of the other.

The observation that the Rudd government may be swayed by the interests of consumers reinforces that the ban on New Zealand apples doesn’t just handicap our apple producers, it adds to the costs and limits choice for Australian consumers.

Waitaki MP Jacqui Dean had earlier welcomed the WTO decision.

“This is a great day for Central Otago growers who have pinned their hopes on gaining access to markets across the Tasman.

“It has been a complicated and sometimes frustrating journey to get to this point, but now that we’re here I know that apple growers will be relieved and delighted.

“I see this decision as a vindication for Central Otago growers who have argued long and hard that the Australian ban should be lifted.

“It will be a major shot in the arm for Central apple growers, giving the industry new hope, and new markets for the future.

“Access to Australia could be worth millions to apple growers in this country and has the potential to turn the industry around.”

The Australian market could take up to 5 percent of the national crop and be worth $20 million a year.

Not everyone is so positive, (Hat Tip Andrei at NZ Conservative) Ozy Mandias wants to send Aussies our rotten apples:

Deep down my real concern is that it won’t take them long to claim our apples as there own. As New Zealanders we are constantly being ripped off by our neighbours as year after year they take our best and claim it for themselves. From racehorses to food to bands  to celebrities they have raped and pillaged the best of our little country and the next thing on their list will be our apples. . .  

My other concern is that soon we will have nothing left in New Zealand at all. . . They say that Auckland is the capital city of Samoa. Within a few years Sydney will be the capital city of New Zealand and Wellington the capital of nothing more than a strong breeze. I hadn’t been too worried about this trend, clinging to the words of former PM Muldoon that “when a New Zealander leaves for Australia they improve the IQ of both nations”. However, I never envisaged that they would move from importing people to importing our most valuable asset, apples. I wonder if Muldoon’s quote still holds true with apples??



Super powers

March 21, 2010

What super powers do we need for the modern world? Not the comic book ones, but ones which make us better people.

Zen Tiger at NZ Conservative muses on this and has come up with a list of five:

1. Comprehend Languages.
2. Know names.
3. Teleport.
4. Healing Touch.
5. Iron Will.

I’ve deliberately left out Zen’s explanations and suggestions of alternate powers because the post deserves to be read in full.

He’s aiming for a top 10. I’ve added:

6. the power to truly forgive and fully forget slights

7. the power to foresee unforeseen consequences.


NZ a square peg in round ETS hole

November 24, 2009

New Zealand’s problem is that we’re different.

Primary production and industries based on it are our bigeest export earners; almost all our forestry is from exotic species; we have relatively little heavy industry and the bulk of our power is already from renewable sources.

The Kyoto Protocol wasn’t designed for countries like us.

The heavy reliance on primary production is much more common in developing countries. But around half our emissions come from animals and there is little, short of reducing stock numbers, we can do to reduce them immediately. Research is being undertaken to reduce emissions from livestock but practical, affordable solutions may be years away.

The rules requiring new trees to be replanted where old ones were felled was aimed at protecting rain forests and indigenous species. It seems no-one considered that a clause aimed at protecting indigenous trees shouldn’t apply to exotic timber species in a country where they grow as well as they do here.

Our private vehicle ownership is high by world standards but that reflects our relatively small, widespread population which means that public transport is neither practical nor affordable in many places.

New Zealand is a square peg and we were ill served by the negotiators who tried to fit us into the round ETS hole.

I have a lot of confidence in Tim Groser who will be working on our behalf at the Copenhagen summit.

But I thought the whole thing was a dog’s breakfast from the start and my concerns are even greater now that there are questions over manipulation of climate change data.

Over at Sciblogs Aimee Witcroft raises the possibility the leaked emails have been doctored and points to a Guardian story  on the issue. It quotes Prof Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at Britain’s Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who said,

“Evidence for climate change is irrefutable. The world’s leading scientists overwhelmingly agree what we’re experiencing is not down to natural variation.”

 Also at Sciblogs Gareth Renowden isn’t convinced by the leaked material.

For a contrary view see:  Ian Wishart,  Adolf at No Minister,  Roarprawn, Whaleoil,  Not PC, Poneke,  Mr Tips at NZ Conservative, Thoughts from 40 South, and Something Should Go Here  who says: 

I’ll say it a thousand times, climate change activism is about politics, not science.


Stat time of the month

October 9, 2009

It’s stat time of the month again when Tim Selwyn of Tumeke! calls for blog stats for the Blogosphere Rankings.

In September at Homepaddock:

Sitemeter recorded 13,478 unique visitors. Stat Counter more generously recorded 15, 117 unique visitors.

 There were 238 posts which received a total of 497 comments.

The four most commented on posts were: 33 on Coal to fertiliser plant for Southland? on 25.9; 17 on Kiwirail must pay its way on 30.9;   16 on Greenpeace has wrong target for wrong reasons on 17.9 and 12 each on  Last cab has the mana and the power on  15.9 and The honourable member on 29.9.

The top 10 referring blogs were:

nominister.blogspot.com 1,580
asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com 924
kiwiblog.co.nz/blogroll 340
nzconservative.blogspot.com 273
kismetfarm.blogspot.com 169
keepingstock.blogspot.com 138
pmofnz.blogspot.com 126
lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com 75
macdoctor.co.nz 70
roarprawn.blogspot.com 69

Thank you for popping in and an electronic bunch of daffodils to all who left a comment.

Sitemeter

homepaddock
This Year’s Visits and Page Views by Month

This Year's Visits and Page Views by Month

The graph from StatCounter doesn’t want to copy but here are the figures:

Page Loads                 Unique Visitors                                            First Time Visitors                           Returning Visitors
Total 21,862 15,117 8,918 6,199
Average 729 504 297 207

Did you see the one about . . .

September 18, 2009

True justice and murder sentencing at Stephen Franks

Ralston addicted to blogging at Cactus Kate – on what’s missing from modern journalism.

What’s a hendecagon? at Something Should Go Here – a handy chart for figuring out which figure is which.

Spring forward: my garden year starts here  by Claire Browning at Pundit.

For confused Beltway types at NZ Conservative – Andrei compares pollution in China and NZ.


Did you see the one about . . .

September 9, 2009

Show Time at In A Strange Land – old crafts and new junk at the Adelaide Show.

Post election polls for new governments at Kiwiblog.

Why all the talk about a new currency at The Visible Hand.

 Accidental Rape? at Macdoctor  who says ACC isn’t the right place for rape cliams.

Referendum Madness from Andrew Geddis at Pundit.

Lazarus a real nowhere man  at Inquiring Mind – we can but hope and in a similar vein Out of the ashes I rise . . . at Dim Post.

Hit Me Baby - Laughy Kate shows how low a blogger can go when driven to compete.

No photos it’s x-rated – at Kismet Farm where there’s no privacy in the horse paddock.

The Artist’s New Rubbish at Opinionated Mummy a rewrite of an old story for modern times.

Apropos of the art is rubbish issue this issue see also:

Rubbish? Art? but I repeat myself  at Not PC

Art that isn’t  at Lindsay Mitchell

Rubbish is not art by Lucia Maria at NZ Conservative

and

Modern Art is Rubbish  at Quote Unquote.

Bits on the Side for Sale at Bits on the Side – another blog bites the dust.


Did you see the one about . . .

July 16, 2009

Holidays at Oswald Bastable

What’s the Point of United Future? at Fairfacts Media (one in a series looking at NZ political parties).

 How to cook a hairy sausage at Quote Unquote.

It’s not okay to be blind drunk and expect police to be there at Cactus Kate.

Spot the criminal at Macdoctor.

Today’s referendum at Keeping Stock (also one in a series).

Read aloud to your children at NZ Conservative.

The Four Pillars at Fenemy.

Comics in the clinics at Not PC.

And a new (to me) blog: A cat of impossible colour  (Hat Tip: Open Parachute)


Did you see the one about . . .

June 21, 2009

Thought for a Friday at Not PC – putting ladies in their place.

An essential accessory for men at Frenemy – the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Driving made illegal  at NZ Conservative

10 illnesses and their effects on history  at Listerve (warning some disturbing images).

A NZ blog ranking tool at Open Parachute (because of the cartoon).

Thank God I’m a country (and city) girl  at Tugging the String

‘Neath the tractor woes  at The Collie Farm Blog

Animals were definitely harmed in the production of this story at Front Porch Republic


Political compass

June 7, 2009

 The one thing which stands out when I do multi choice tests like the political compass is that I don’t like black and white answers because my response to many of the questions is but/providing/if. . .

That said, I’ve done two versions of the political compass and come out in a similar position as a right moderate social libertarian.

This one is the political spectrum quiz:

 dairy 10001

This is the political compass (which I found ages ago through Monkeywithtypewriter)

pol-compass

I’m left of Freidman and right of Ghandi on the economic spectrum but on a similar level to both on the social one.

I’m also a bit further right and more liberal than Halfdone at Something should go here and Lucia Maria at NZ Conservative and well to the right and more liberal than Dave at Big News .

P.S. – Halfdone is interested in compiling a chart of where bloggers sit on the compass.


Brooke Fraser – Love Is Waiting

May 18, 2009

Day 18 of the tune a day challenge for New Zealand Music Month.

Brooker Fraser sings Love Is Waiting from her album Albertine.

Catching up on yesterday’s posts:

Inquiring Mind chose I Can’t Stop Being Foolish by the Mint Chicks

Keeping Stock had another Christian Sunday with two songs from Mumsdollar: A Biography and Brothers in Arms

NZ Conservative joined the party with Coup D’Etat singing Doctor I Like Your Medicine.

Rob had two fer Sunday:  Citizen Band with Rust in My Car  and Street Talk  Back in the Bad Old Days


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,277 other followers

%d bloggers like this: