Sunday soapbox

Sunday’s soapbox is yours to use as you will – within the bounds of decency and absence of defamation. You’re welcome to look back or forward, discuss issues of the moment, to pontificate, ponder or point us to something of interest, to educate, elucidate or entertain, amuse, bemuse or simply muse, but not abuse.
Sue Fitzmaurice, Author's photo.

We all want to save the world a little bit, it’s okay if you just save one person, it’s okay if you are that person. – Sue Fitzmaurice

169 Responses to Sunday soapbox

  1. TraceyS says:

    “ORC director of environmental monitoring and operations Scott MacLean said the staff member responsible for the fence had decided not to set it up at the usual time this year, based on observations of daffodils in another location.

    ”He had the right intentions, but it was the wrong [decision],” Mr MacLean said.”

    Because the daffodils were not protected, sheep wandered into the patch and made a meal of the shrubbery and flowers.”

    http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/south-otago/358798/orc-apologises-after-sign-munched

    As well as putting the fence up, I wonder if the council also had to make substantial donation to the Balclutha Beautification Society and hold an educational day at a local primary school?

    As in:

    https://agrihq.co.nz/article/farmers-kindness-ends-in-court?p=42

    Mr Vollweiler also appears to have “had the right intentions”, but has made the wrong decision.

    “Asked how Vollweiler should have dealt with the trash in the river, MacLean said good logging practice would have ensured it never got in the river to begin with.

    Otherwise, more care should have been taken to remove the trash without disturbing the river bed, he said.”

    More care should have been taken with the fence around the daffodil sign too but a sheepish apology seems good enough in this case.

    Like

  2. farmerbraun says:

    And in further news :-

    “Deposed former Australian interview Trappist Tony Abbott today entered the furore in relation to the real culprits behind the downing of Flight MH17.
    Freed from his vow of silence as Prime Ministrone*, Friar Abbott told newspersons, :- “I spoke in depth with national security officials at the time, whom I found without exception to be entirely trustworthy and American.
    They all assured me that the crash investigators who blamed peace-loving Ukrainian fighters against Russian aggression had been infiltrated by Russian brain-transplant surgeons personally trained by infamous child-abuser Vladimir Sputum.
    They assured me that in fact President Shootem had been captured on film by the CIA, bare-chested and personally launching the air-to-air rocket, and thus in the light of this overwhelming evidence, and my tertiary stupidity condition, I had no option but to accept their account”.

    * Recent research by the University of WoombillaGoolagong showed that, in 47 paired comparison tests, Mr Ahbut had a higher IQ than spaghetti strands in a bowl of Minestrone soup on an impressive 36 occasions.

    Like

  3. andrei says:

    Report on MH17 is due tomorrow Farmer B

    It will evade answering the $64 question though

    Politics is truly the Devil’s business

    Like

  4. Biofarm says:

    It might be a $64 question, but the “answer” will likely be worthless, as far as seeking truth is concerned.

    Like

  5. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, an alternative view re methane:
    http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

    Also Venture Southland’s research on dairy ponds found the methane emissions from these were much greater than expected, but they are working on a solution:
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/r-is-shaping-southlands-future.html

    Like

  6. Will Dwan says:

    That’s the debunked view Dave. Try to keep up.

    Like

  7. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, you better tell Agresearch, NIWA, Hortresearch and Venture Southland that their research has been debunked by an article on Wattsupwiththat blog (using evidence that is actually not that conclusive when you follow the links).

    http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/greenhouse-gases/agricultural-greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions

    Like

  8. farmerbraun says:

    Dave funding for the research has been cut: surely you knew that.
    And it was never about methane effect on climate.
    I am sure that you also knew that.

    None of the research on methane emissions from cattle has been debunked to date.

    Like

  9. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, I read the blog post you linked to and followed the links, the debunking of methane as a contributor to climate change was not convincing and there even appeared to be a dispute between the writer and one of his sources. Again it pays to check the credibility of the writer, are they respected in their field? have their claims been peer reviewed and been supported as accurate or credible? Dr Tim Ball fails in both counts:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit

    There has been solid evidence for some time (I have linked to a piece that summarises existing research in 1998 and little has shifted from that understanding since) that methane is a substantial GHG that is more potent than CO2 but does not have a long life.

    http://journals.co-action.net/index.php/tellusb/article/viewFile/16030/17945

    Again the scientists often being held up here as credible skeptics just aren’t. Most have connections with the highly dubious, oil funded Heartland Foundation or the fossil fuel industry. In the Case of Dr Ball, he has never worked in climate research and has been a spokesperson for discredited lobby groups in Canada.

    Like

  10. farmerbraun says:

    That may be, but you changed the subject. You spoke of agresearch etc. and said that they should be told
    that their research had been debunked.

    I pointed out that it had not. You do not disagree, but switch to climate research, with which Agresearch etc. have not been involved .
    Their work is in ruminant fermentation, and has not been debunked.

    Like

  11. farmerbraun says:

    Please don’t take it personally: you are far from being the only member of the Green Party who needs to get out more.

    At WUWT you will find the latest post challenging methane hysteria.
    I challenge you to debunk it, either at WUWT or here.
    It is just simple arithmetic.
    The floor is yours.
    The post is by Willis Eschenbach.
    Enjoy 🙂

    Like

  12. D W Robinson says:

    The discrediting of Willis Eschenbach starting….In
    Three….
    Two….
    One……

    Like

  13. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, Let me get this straight, you linked to an article that apparently claimed that the methane produced from animals had no effect on climate change and famers were being punished unnecessarily:

    “Farmers were attacked in the 1970s and 80s with claims their cattle produced methane (CH4) that caused global warming. It was incorrect scientifically and ignored facts that provided a different picture. ”

    Ball tried to claim that methane had a limited effect as a GHG and that concrntrations had dropped. But if you go to the sources of his data (including the graph) he has misrepresented the effects of methane and what has caused the emissions.

    My links demonstrated the potency of methane and the research in NZ that showed the levels of methane emissions from livestock. It is obvious that while other sources of methane may have reduced on a global scale the emissions from livestock, especially cattle have been growing. The more animals one farms the more methane is produced.

    “On dairy farms in Canterbury, with herds of 270 to 550 cows, seasonal methane emission rates ranged from 284 to 427 g/day per cow.”

    “New Zealand has the largest methane emission rate (0.6 t per person per year)—six times the global average. The methane comes primarily from enteric fermentation in ruminant livestock, and sheep are the greatest single source. The first measurements of methane emission rates from grazing sheep were made in New Zealand by NIWA and AgResearch during Autumn 1996. These emissions ranged four-fold from 9–35 g/day. Such large differences between individual animal’s methangenetic response to digestion could potentially be exploited as an emissions mitigation strategy.”

    I understand that since this research was done the growth in dairying has caused it to have supplanted sheep as the major source of methane.

    Venture Southland also found that there are other methane sources on farms that produce more methane than previously thought, such as dairy ponds.

    Which bit didn’t I understand?

    Like

  14. farmerbraun says:

    “Which bit did I not understand?”

    I’m not being facetious Dave, but I fear that it was most of it. But definitely the central thesis of Ball’s opinion piece.

    Like

  15. farmerbraun says:

    Dave, I see no point in pointing out the holes in the central tenets of your “climate change” beliefs.
    That is primarily because few people are still clinging to this doctrine, and it no longer affects me in any meaningful way, and for that I am very grateful.
    The role of those who have insisted that the science is settled has been central to discrediting the whole AGW scare.
    Common sense was on the side of those who insisted that we had , and have , insufficient knowledge of climate mechanisms to rule anything out , or in.

    Like

  16. D W Robinson says:

    Which bit didn’t I understand?

    I fear that it was most ALL of it.

    Perhaps ….
    “The idea that methane is a major player in the temperature game is a scientific urban legend.”

    Caused his head to explode.

    Like

  17. farmerbraun says:

    🙂

    Like

  18. Dave Kennedy says:

    Eschenbach is being disingenuous with how he presents the different descriptions about the potency of methane. Most sources give methanes GHG strength as between 20 and 25 times that of CO2 and many say approx. The greater numbers are referring to different time periods, so over 4-5 years we are talking about 70-80 times the potency of CO2. The differences in the figures are because of the different contexts and a google check easily establishes this. If the writer is so dishonest in their presentation of the data, why would you trust their general conclusions.

    DWR, mentions my discrediting of scientists, but surely if someone presents themselves as a credible scientist in climate science and yet have no research in the field and their arguments aren’t supported by anyone else in the scientific community, then what does this mean? I am not the one discrediting them, others have beaten me to it.

    Here is Willis Eschenbach’s biography, he has a massage qualification and a degree in psychology and has connections with…surprise surprise, the Heartland Institute and the oil industry.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach

    Like

  19. Dave Kennedy says:

    “The idea that methane is a major player in the temperature game is a scientific urban legend.”

    As stated by a discredited scientist who is misinterpreting the data. Just because Dr Ball says this and the Heartland Institute supports it, doesn’t mean it’s true.

    No “exploding head” just an amused chuckle that the pattern is always the same, a skeptic scientist is used to prove that climate science is flawed but practically every one can be linked to the Heartland Institute or the oil industry. Given that there is only a handful of these scientists (and many are in their 80s and 90s) one would think that some joined up thinking would occur… But no, yet another is pulled out of the hat and the process is repeated 😉

    Like

  20. D W Robinson says:

    The discrediting of Willis Eschenbach starting….In
    Three….
    Two….
    One……

    “Here is Willis Eschenbach’s biography, he has a massage qualification and a degree in psychology and has connections with…surprise surprise, the Heartland Institute and the oil industry.”

    Right on cue

    Like

  21. Dave Kennedy says:

    DWR, and you read my own analysis of his article?

    Also realise, it is not me who does the discrediting, it is the scientific community. Checking the credibility of the source is important, that’s why I go to a dentist rather than a plumber to fix my teeth. I also believe that a massage therapist with an arts degree would not be my first option as an expert on climate science.

    Interestingly few here respect my knowledge regarding farming but eagerly accept anyone who questions climate science…

    Like

  22. TraceyS says:

    “Most sources give methanes GHG strength as between 20 and 25 times that of CO2 and many say approx. The greater numbers are referring to different time periods, so over 4-5 years we are talking about 70-80 times the potency of CO2.”

    Seriously, Dave, that makes no sense at all.

    Like

  23. TraceyS says:

    Farmerbraun, did you read the comments (all of them) at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/11/scientific-urban-legends/?

    The author totally loses his cool not long after the sensible reader comment on October at 9:19pm.

    I’m glad Ele doesn’t react like that! Some things are better just to be thought and no more.

    (PS. The comment on October 12 at 1:12am gives a seemingly much sounder explanation to the 20-80x variance than Dave’s bizarre one above).

    Like

  24. andrei says:

    Totally bizarre – arguing over the effect of gases which are found naturally in the atmosphere in minute quantities and are essential to life as we know it!

    Totally innumerate blockheads going round and round the mulberry bush over nothing, mostly because they listen to unscrupulous politicians who are always looking for an angle to increase their power over us.

    This world is ruled by lies, deceit and bullshit

    Like

  25. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey:
    https://www.edf.org/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas

    https://www.edf.org/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas

    Because Methane has a shorter life than CO2 it’s potency reduces over time. The longer the time period, the less impact. Over 100 years it is around 25 times stronger but in the first two decades it is 84 times.

    Eschenbach pretended that the different strengths proved inconsistencies but he wasn’t comparing apples with apples.

    Like

  26. farmerbraun says:

    ” a skeptic scientist is used to prove that climate science is flawed ”

    Straw man Dave. Kick him hard : you’re a winner !

    Like

  27. farmerbraun says:

    “if someone presents themselves as a credible scientist in climate science and yet have no research in the field and their arguments aren’t supported by anyone else in the scientific community, then what does this mean? ”

    It means that you continue to present your logical fallacy . . . to wit , argumentum ad vericundiam.

    🙂

    Like

  28. farmerbraun says:

    “The author totally loses his cool ”

    Yes , he is exasperated by people who won’t say what issue they are addressing. I’ve experienced it from him myself. But that’s O.K. You just have to stay on topic and quote what you disagree with. It is a very good rule.

    The point below by W.E. is the one that Dave seems unwilling or unable to grasp , in spite of it being the only possible scientific conclusion at this time.

    ” ……because we still have very little understanding of the climate. We don’t know why it was warmer in the Medieval and Roman times. We don’t know why it cooled from the Medieval times to the Little Ice Age, and we don’t know why it stopped cooling and started warming since the Little Ice Age.

    Given that, the idea that we can say what is unusual and what is not is hubris of the highest order …”

    Just as I said at 7.48 :-

    “Common sense was on the side of those who insisted that we had , and have , insufficient knowledge of climate mechanisms to rule anything out , or in.”

    That is science.

    Cue another argumentum ad vericundiam. For variation try argumentum ad populum . . . . 97% of idiots will be impressed 🙂

    Like

  29. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, the causes of past warmings and cooling have been explained and all have natural causes. Our current situation is largely caused by GHG forcings that we are producing. You are right about an element of unpredictability, which is why we talk about climatic effects rather than accurately predicting of weather.

    Click to access whatcause.pdf

    Interestingly FB, I was talking to a PhD student from Otago University in the weekend who is researching farming and climate change and she has been conducting interviews and surveys of farmers as part of this. What surprised her was that a greater ratio of organic farmers appeared to be climate skeptics than the wider group. Perhaps organic farmers are able to question convention and are more independent thinkers, however in relation to climate science one would have thought that the weight of evidence and consensus would have won over. Perhaps again they are so used to fighting against majority views that they have a skeptic approach to everything unless they can explain it themselves. I guess this should be admired.

    However, I still don’t get why you put your faith in the likes of Wattsupwiththat and science commentators with links to the Heartland Institute and oil companies before actual climate scientists and credible science institutions. The motivation for creating doubt in climate science is clear for Heartland and oil companies and scientists who work for them have obvious conflicts of interest. For most scientists there is actually little wealth in studying the climate (those working for the oil industry are probably paid more) and reputations are built around accuracy and honesty.

    Like

  30. farmerbraun says:

    Dave , stop trying to paint me in to a corner.
    The only thing that I have some faith in is the thing that you studiously ignore, along with every statement I have made citing it. The scientific method.
    The post to which you are ostensibly replying, contains two statements of the science. You do not argue against either one.
    Do you in fact concede the points?

    Like

  31. farmerbraun says:

    Dave I suggest that many farmers are quite good at science.
    This may be a consequence of the constant bombardment of dodgy commercial “science”to which they are subjected in the farming press which arrives, free of charge , in their mail.
    Farmers have come to understand the falsification of the null hypothesis as a necessary prerequisite to establishing a claim.
    Organic farmers are especially adept at seeing through the bogus science of the Agchem industry.
    It is no surprise that they give AGW short shrift.

    Like

  32. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, I guess we are approaching climate change from two different prospectives. My approach is the same as what i would do if I was diagnosed with brain cancer. I don’t have the medical knowledge myself to understand the complex medical ramifications of the condition or what would be the best treatment for it. I would probably put my faith in specialists and medical research. I may even seek a second opinion. If it was a terminal condition I may look at some outlying or developing treatments and specialists who are not part of the mainstream. However their track record and credentials will still be important to verify. I approach the issue of climate change in the same way.

    You appear to be trying to sort out the whole climate problem by yourself and matching commentary and what research you can find to fit your predetermined view. I can hazard a bet that you have spent more time reading Wattsupwiththat than anything from NASA or the Royal Society. Some of the links I put up were summaries but they had long lists of referenced research to support them but the stuff that you have linked to are mainly personal assessments of science by non scientists and in one case there was a clear attempt to misrepresent the data.

    You may have to restate your main points again as I’m not sure if we have moved on from the methane issue or that is still important to you. As regards the “little understanding of climate” I’m not sure the extent that you feel it is true as scientists appear to have a very good understanding of climate, it’s just not perfect as climate is made up of so many variables and interactions that it is impossible to predict and understand them all. For all that there is enough knowledge to understand the main principles and forcings and, with increasing research and data collection, accuracy is improving all the time. The consensus amongst climate scientists across the world is extensive and solid and has been so for decades.

    Like

  33. farmerbraun says:

    “. I can hazard a bet that you have spent more time reading Wattsupwiththat than anything from NASA or the Royal Society. ”

    Nope that is one bet that you would lose.
    I have been reading climate for 45 years or so , back when CO2 was going to cause an Ice Age..
    I like to read both sides.

    “not perfect as climate is made up of so many variables and interactions that it is impossible to predict and understand them all.”

    Which makes it impossible in the scientific sense to attribute cause and effect. That’s obvious , right? And accepted by everybody.
    And that is why models were constructed to attempt to find correlations.. So far , no go , but it is early days. We only have 30 odd years of reliable data from the satellites.

    You could consider that organic farmers are empiricists.
    They are constantly told that organic farming (despite a 5000+ year history) does not work in theory.
    But they have discovered that it works very well in practice.
    Naturally they conclude that the theory is wrong.
    They find the same situation with AGW, and come to much the same conclusion.

    Like

  34. farmerbraun says:

    I’m referring to the Hamaker book “The Survival of Civilisation”, and yes , I have also been an ardent warmist.

    Like

  35. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, except there is consensus around cause and effect. GHG traps heat and as quanities of GHG are growing because of human activity (proven) we are causing more rapid change than would have occurred naturally. The direct effect of this can be predicted but the complexity of climatic effects on weather systems make it difficult for them to be accurately established. But there is enough knowledge and understanding to know the consequences will be catastrophic if we cannot limit warming below 2 degrees. More intense storms, rising sea levels and general warming will occur. Even in New Zealand climate change will have an effect on weather that will make farming more challenging and low lying areas will be under threat of rising sea levels (which has already started).

    You are claiming that because all aspects can’t be fully predicted then we shouldn’t trust what has been established and doubt the reliability of what has been discovered. I don’t get this, because if we go back to my cancer analogy, there is still a lot not known about cancer, but the existing medical science still has value and has improved outcomes.

    Like

  36. farmerbraun says:

    It is precisely the cause and effect aspect which has been, and continues to be the subject of the scientific enquiry in climatology.
    It cannot be shown that CO2 increase causes any observable warming.
    Any observable warming or cooling might be caused by something else: we do not know what.
    Science concludes that the conjecture that CO2 will cause dangerous warming is neither proved nor disproved.
    End of story , as far as science is concerned.

    Like

  37. farmerbraun says:

    Just a minor quibble- it is not proven that the CO2 increase is due to human activity,either wholly or in part , because we do not know what the level would be doing if humans were not here.

    Like

  38. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Just a minor quibble- it is not proven that the CO2 increase is due to human activity,either wholly or in part , because we do not know what the level would be doing if humans were not here.”

    The consensus since the 80s is that CO2 and other GHG have been increasing in concentrations because of human activity. 350 ppm of CO2 was considered the level that would maintain a stable climate, we now have over 400 ppm and the effects are obvious. The hockey stick graph that has caused angst from deniers and skeptics showed that the current warming is much greater than it would be based on pervious natural fluctuations. We can measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, we know how greenhouses gases trap heat and cause warming and we know that human activity has increased the concentrations of GHG.

    Click to access pr72.pdf

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

    http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.VhxV6rSqpBc

    Like

  39. Dave Kennedy says:

    oops “based on ‘previous’ natural fluctuations…”

    Like

  40. Andrei says:

    he consensus since the 80s is that CO2 and other GHG have been increasing in concentrations because of human activity. 350 ppm of CO2 was considered the level that would maintain a stable climate, we now have over 400 ppm and the effects are obvious.

    I know I am pissing in the wind because arguing with religious fundamentalists is an exercise in futility

    BUT

    Dave Kennedy as I have told you many times before there is no such thing as a stable climate

    The Earths atmospheric and hydrological systems are always evolving. These are interacting non linear dynamical systems which means that to all intents and purposes they are unpredictable except in highly restrictive circumstances where short term predictions may be made.

    You sir are bonkers, ‘ even less rational than the Jehovah’s Witnesses with whom you have much in common

    Like

  41. Dave Kennedy says:

    Andrei, by stable I am referring to a range of weather patterns and temperatures that are generally consistent. We are now heading into an era where the fluctuations are becoming more extreme with hotter and colder temperatures; average temperatures steadily increasing; and more extreme storms. Some climate evolution is natural, but the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that human activities have a large impact now. It is likely that in 30 years time or less (with no change in our activities) we will have a very challenging world to live in.

    http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/threats-impacts/

    Like

  42. andrei says:

    Dave Kennedy, in case you hadn’t noticed in the year of our Lord 2015 we have a challenging world to live in

    Germany for example has received 1.5 million refugees this year, mostly undocumented, who do not have a command of the local language, jobs, a place to live etc Serbia, Greece. Macedonia and Italy are all being over run by these people. There are more refugees on the Greek Island of Lesbos than there are local inhabitants with more arriving every day

    And if you think that this does not portend great problems ahead….

    Throughout human existence we have had to deal with challenges, some natural in origin others self inflicted, the worst being the later.

    Count your blessings that you have lived your life in a time and a place of relative peace and tranquillity. most humans who have ever lived have not been so fortunate.

    Eventually Humanity will encounter a problem we cannot overcome and we will become extinct, this is inevitable just as our own personal mortality is inevitable.

    You may choose to fritter away the time you have fretting over phantom problems or watching movies about the Zombie apocalypse – whatever rocks your boat, its six of one and half a dozen of the other IMHO

    But count on it there isn’t a politician alive who can do anything about the climate or the weather, they are what they are and we have to live with whatever they throw at us

    Like

  43. andrei says:

    Dave Kennedy – in the late 1880s there was a seaport in Texas called Indianola – the city fathers conceived that Indianola would become the biggest sea port on the Gulf

    But Indianola was wacked with two great hurricanes in quick succession, a few years apart and the people just gave up and Indianola was abandoned

    So Galveston took the mantle and became a great sea port instead

    In 1900 Galveston was wacked by a major hurricane, to this day the Galveston hurricane of 1900 remains the largest natural disaster to ever hit the USA, over 10,000 dead.

    But the city fathers picked up the pieces, rebuilt the city and port and a great sea wall to protect the city from hurricane surges, which it has now for 115 years

    Hurricanes predate the industrial revolution of course, their frequency and intensity do not appear to have any correlation with fossil fuel use, not in a detectable way in any case.

    Of course the biggest hurricane ever recorded was the Great Hurricane of 1780, 30,000+ dead across the Caribbean

    Like

  44. farmerbraun says:

    “350 ppm of CO2 was considered the level that would maintain a stable climate, ”

    Whoa , sorry that is absolute nonsense.
    Do you seriously wish me to accept that this is the level of your understanding of climatology?
    Because I am prepared to.

    Like

  45. farmerbraun says:

    ” It is certain that in 30 years time or less (with no change in our activities) we will have a very challenging world to live in.”

    FIFY Dave. It is unlikely to be anything to do with climate though.
    Unless it is getting a lot colder, in which case , millions will likely perish.

    Like

  46. farmerbraun says:

    ” less rational than the Jehovah’s Witnesses with whom you have much in common”

    But Andrei , the JWs publicly acknowledge that they believe in something that nobody has ever seen.
    Whereas . . .

    🙂

    Like

  47. TraceyS says:

    It is not surprising that more organic farms question global warming. In my experience environmentally aware people also tend to be very free thinkers.

    Take note, Dave, this is where the Green Party gets things wrong. For example, opposing things like Partnership Schools that actually give people greater freedom and choices.

    Free thinkers don’t like others doing it for them. So the 8% whom you hoped would vote for you in 2014 and didn’t – maybe you alienated them?

    Like

  48. TraceyS says:

    *farmers*

    Like

  49. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Do you seriously wish me to accept that this is the level of your understanding of climatology?”

    FB, It seems to be the same as many scientists (that is where I got the understanding from). What are your sources for otherwise?

    http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/

    Andrei, I totally support your concerns about world politics and the military and economic decisions that have caused widespread suffering. However there will be little point in caring about those if none of us can continue living comfortably on our planet within the next few decades. We must stop the stupidity in the Middle East, and we also need to deal with our environmental behaviour:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/27/extreme-weather-already-on-increase-due-to-climate-change-study-finds

    Like

  50. farmerbraun says:

    ” give people greater freedom and choices.”

    “I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.”

    ― H.L. Mencken

    Some people prefer servitude , to opiates , to religion, to dogma, to cults.

    Like

  51. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Take note, Dave, this is where the Green Party gets things wrong. For example, opposing things like Partnership Schools that actually give people greater freedom and choices.”

    Tracey, it sounds as if you are a supporter of Mike Hosking, that’s what he has been saying. 😉

    The “greater choice” that Charter Schools provided was in essence an expensive waste of time and exposed kids to greater risk. Out of five schools one was a serious failure and none have achieved the rolls they have been funded for. The Government has refused to compare their outcomes with state schools but is allowing more to start up, again with great expense. Education should be evidence based and the way these were set up and managed has been appalling. Pure ideology.

    In actual fact Tomorrows Schools are a form of Charter Schools and the main difference with ACT’s version is that they don’t have to employ qualified teachers, they are are protected from public scrutiny, the owners can profit from public funding and they can ignore the teacher’s collective agreements.

    This Government appears to be removing the flexibility and independence of state schools that were part of the original model while allowing Charter Schools the same independence instead. Why would they do that?

    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/the-destruction-of-new-zealands-public.html

    Like

  52. farmerbraun says:

    The flexibility and independence in education that really matters is the right and obligation of parents to withdraw their children from inappropriate schooling situations.
    That right/obligation remains untouched.

    Like

  53. TraceyS says:

    Someone’s stretching the facts again.

    Dave Kennedy says “Because Methane has a shorter life than CO2 it’s potency reduces over time. The longer the time period, the less impact. Over 100 years it is around 25 times stronger but in the first two decades it is 84 times.”

    However, methane doesn’t last in the atmosphere for two decades.

    “The current climate forcing by CH4 (excluding indirect chemical effects) is 26 times that of CO2 (calculated on a mole CO2 mole CH4 basis). A recently introduced quantity to express the time integrated effect of CH4 relative to that of CO2 over a given time interval is the global warming potential (GW P). We assess that the GW P of CH4, including chemical feedbacks, over a 10 year integration period is 26.9 (mole CO2 mole CH4), decreasing to 7.5 for a time horizon of 100 years. (my bold)

    Lelieveld, J., Crutzen, P. J., Brühl, C. Climate effects of atmospheric methane. Chemosphere: Vol 26, Issue 1–4, January–February 1993, Pages 739-768.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004565359390458H

    Reputable, peer reviewed journal. Article cited 191 times.

    Authors:

    Jos Lelieveld
    Director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz
    atmospheric chemistry.
    https://www.mpg.de/443774/chemie_wissM3

    Paul Jozef Crutzen
    Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Crutzen

    (Not sure about the other one. Could he/she be an oil industry exec?)

    Trust this ticks all of your boxes, Dave.

    Like

  54. Dave Kennedy says:

    I agree FB and there should be an obligation by the Government to provide a state education system that puts the interests of the children first and uses evidence and good process to advance teaching practice. National Standards were implemented and imposed on all children and schools without trial and without a research and evidence base. It was essentially a trial imposed on all children and was being developed at the same time as being implemented. This was a hugely messy and frustrating process for teachers and boards who were bullied into implementing them despite misgivings and concerns about the outcomes for children. Research has since shown that professional concerns were correct.

    Charter Schools were held up as something ACT wanted in their coalition agreement and were politically and ideologically inspired. The dodgy thing about Charter Schools was that National obviously planned to implement them anyway, having employed Lesley Longstone to head the Ministry when her main area of expertise was the implementation of Charter Schools in the UK. There was no public mandate to do this and ACT had not campaigned on them, they were introduced through the ‘back door’.

    Like

  55. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Trust this ticks all of your boxes, Dave.”
    Yes it does Tracey, and I thank you for supporting my argument, yet again. I am not familiar with all the science behind the range of data that Eschenbach referred to because he did not link to the sources (more evidence of dishonesty and lack of transparency). It is clear that the potency of Methane diminishes over time and that he obviously wasn’t comparing data that was representing the same thing when using the numbers in a Google search.

    I will not argue about my accuracy regarding the life of methane because I do not have the expertise to do so, but I was able to quickly expose Eschenbach’s dishonesty without having to know too much.

    Like

  56. farmerbraun says:

    It is demonstrably the case that the State cannot provide an education system that is entirely appropriate for every single child in the country.
    Neither should the State attempt to do that with taxpayer money.
    The cost would be horrendous and the result predictably horrific.

    Like

  57. farmerbraun says:

    Many of us can recall when there were National Standards , such as Certificate of Attainment, School Certificate, Matriculation (University Entrance), Higher Leaving Certificate.

    The existence of these standards did not, in general, produce undesirable outcomes.

    And there also existed in practice, a national standard for primary schooling. It was generally accepted that a primary school leaver should be able to read , write and count.

    Like

  58. TraceyS says:

    “…I was able to quickly expose Eschenbach’s dishonesty without having to know too much.”

    Oh I think you have to be a bit careful trying to discredit someone when you admittedly “don’t know too much”. I’m sincerely trusting you will see the folly in your statement upon re-reading.

    I do not think he was being dishonest at all. What cause would he have to be?

    What he drew attention to, and you gave evidence to with your daft “84%” claim, is that the numbers vary because much of what is being reported is pure speculation.

    I note that Lelieveld et. al. (1993) state “[t]he current climate forcing by CH4 (excluding indirect chemical effects)…”

    It is the indirect chemical effects that are speculated upon to give the wild plucked-out-of-the-dark numbers that so greatly vary the reported values for GWP.

    Like

  59. TraceyS says:

    Eschenbach’s calculations actually had methane at 33.6x carbon dioxide. See the comment from chris y, October 11, 9:19pm, who had worked back to that ratio from Eschenbach’s figures.

    That’s what he based his argument on and I can’t really see the issue with that.

    If you can, Dave, perhaps you care to explain – directly addressing the topic please.

    As I pointed out, it’s the indirect chemical effects which give rise to more extreme claims. But if you read the literature you’ll find the researchers admit that there is a great deal of uncertainty over these effects.

    Like

  60. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, I totally agree that standards in schools are very important, but so is the nature of those standards if they are going to be effective. I believe the most important standards are professional standards. Having the best teachers working with children supported by strong professional support, the best outcomes will be achieved. Finland did this by raising the status of teachers so that 6,000 apply for 600 training positions each year and they have to have the equivalent of a masters qualification.

    We expect our doctors and surgeons have to meet high standards of knowledge and practice, it should be the same for teachers. professional Standards are of more value than a testing regime that is too narrow and forces teachers to teach to tests rather than to children’s needs. I know many dyslexic tradesmen and business people who would be labelled failures under National Standards, of course literacy and numeracy is important, but so is work ethic, the ability to work with others, problem solving skills and creativity. We need more than report writers and accountants in our economy.

    Also you will find that the most successful countries educationally all have very well supported public education systems (Singapore, Norway). Such systems tend to be professionally led and motivated, not profit driven. Without a public education system we would end up with an inequitable situation where the rich can afford the best education and poor get substandard provision, we need all our children doing well and all schools should be good schools.

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/finlands-education-system-best-in-world-2012-11#finnish-children-dont-start-school-until-they-are-7-1

    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/

    Like

  61. farmerbraun says:

    The amazing thing is how the high levels of uncertainty that are carefully expressed in the Summary of Science in the IPCC reports, become absolute certainties in the Summary for Policy Makers.

    Funny, that!

    Like

  62. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, I won’t argue with you because I am not a climate scientist. However it was easy to discover that Eschenbach was being dishonest in his approach and has no scientific credibility.

    Like

  63. farmerbraun says:

    Ad hominem. Fail.
    🙂

    Like

  64. D W Robinson says:

    Ad hominem. Fail.

    Exactly!
    Remember……..

    “The discrediting of Willis Eschenbach starting….In
    Three….
    Two….
    One……”

    He never fails to disappoint.

    Like

  65. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, you can use levels of uncertainty to create doubt in the overall science but the scientific consensus was established based on the levels of certainty, and those are very compelling. “The Merchants of Doubt” is worth a read.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

    DWR, if i was simply attacking the person then you you may have a point. I began by pointing out flaws in his argument, I then looked at what support his argument had in the wider scientific community, I looked at his academic background to see the context from where he writes from and found the following:
    Eschenbach was dishonest and manipulative in his presentation of data, he had little support from the scientific community and there was a lot of evidence to support opposing views, his academic background was not in the area he was commenting on.

    I didn’t have to discredit him personally as you would have seen by my many links, he discredited himself.

    Your support of Eschenbach and anything he has to say around climate just poses questions around your own judgment.

    I should never be the coach of the All Blacks because my history and experience makes me clearly unfit for the role (I was a tramper and climber and represented my school in athletics and hockey). If I claimed to be an expert in Rugby you would be quite correct in questioning my credibility and my fitness to pass judgment on the game, especially if what i said was clearly rubbish. I regard Eschenbach in the same way when it comes to his credibility as a climate scientist. I think this approach is logical 😉

    Like

  66. TraceyS says:

    Dave at 11:19 am. You must be prepared to back up claims you make, and then make again.

    If you are not, then you shouldn’t make them. Alternatively, preface your comments with “I speculate…”

    The internet is a fine tool. You do not need to be a scientist to be knowledgeable, to be reasoned, and to be fair. In short, you can emulate the qualities of a good scientist without actually being one. Another good scientific quality is being prepared to admit when you are wrong.

    Like

  67. D W Robinson says:

    I didn’t have to discredit him personally, he discredited himself.

    PRICELESS.

    Like

  68. Mr E says:

    “his academic background was not in the area he was commenting on.

    I didn’t have to discredit him personally as you would have seen by my many links, he discredited himself.”

    I wonder Dave, how much discrediting have you done of yourself. I presume you don’t have a background in Climate science?

    Like

  69. D W Robinson says:

    Remember, Mr E, This is a man who doesn’t do his own brain surgery, preferring instead to subject us to a veritable deluge of links that suit his narrative.
    Self awareness would not figure strong here.

    Like

  70. Mr E says:

    “Self awareness would not figure strong here.”

    Wise words.

    Like

  71. D W Robinson says:

    Sometimes a picture. is worth a thousand words.

    Like

  72. TraceyS says:

    Self awareness is not something that is given it’s earned.

    Like

  73. farmerbraun says:

    Dave , I’m posting this link because I think that it is important for political aspirants to be aware of what people in the real world are thinking. We don’t have to argue about it or even discuss it.
    It’s just a bit of a heads-up on where the trail is leading.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/burn-oil-feed-the-world-grow-plants-save-forests-get-richer-live-longer-why-we-urgently-need-to-raise-co2/

    Like

  74. farmerbraun says:

    Freeman Dyson has a little to say in the foreword:-

    “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/13/top-physicist-freeman-dyson-obama-picked-wrong-side-climate-change/

    Like

  75. Dave Kennedy says:

    This climate change debate here between two groups of people with no climate science background. Because of that the references used become crucial. I disagree with Tracey, I could never compete with a climate scientist and I will never have enough knowledge to assess the detail in any research. There is also so much of it (thousands and thousands of individual and institutional studies over decades) that to look at one piece in isolation of all the rest is pointless.

    The credibility of sources then becomes crucial and I really struggle with trusting anything that comes from the discredited Heartland Institute or any scientist associated with it. Any scientist who works for the fossil fuel industry must have sizable conflicts of interest too.

    The following that Lord Monckton has shows the danger of nonscientists and the general public being exposed to a clever orator presenting psuedoscience, he has certainly taken in a lot of people including Federated Farmers.

    I find it amazing that you guys prefer the Heartland Institute and the private blog of a TV weatherman to conventional science institutions and communities. I am used to being involved with a Party with 10-17.5% support in polls and being a political outlier but the fact that you guys are determined to support the 3-5% of the scientific community that are climate science skeptics while I support the majority view is a novelty 😉

    And you talk to me about self-awareness…?

    Tracey, self awareness isn’t something that’s “earned” it is generally an innate trait, but may be taught. I would love to see how self-awareness can be earned 😉

    Like

  76. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, you have Dyson as your climate champion:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

    Here is one of mine:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Hayhoe

    And a few more that you can choose from:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

    Like

  77. farmerbraun says:

    You still don’t get it Dave. There is only science , and the scientific method , but it is very obviously a foreign land to you.

    Falsification of the Null Hypothesis can be understood by almost anybody , except , it seems , someone who appears to have a vested interest in not understanding it.

    Still the Green Party makes no claim to being science-based, so I guess that means there is no place for the scientific method .
    You are at least being consistent.

    I don’t understand your obsession with champions , and authorities and consensus, and numbers.

    My puzzlement can only be resolved by concluding that your “climate science” is not science at all.

    When I went to school it was called climatology – obviously a distant cousin.

    Like

  78. TraceyS says:

    “I disagree with Tracey, I could never compete with a climate scientist…”

    I didn’t ask you to compete with a climate scientist. I asked you to learn from him. If you had followed the link provided (https://www.mpg.de/443774/chemie_wissM3) you would have found his email address and you could have used that to try and engage him in a conversation which would, no doubt, have improved your knowledge of methane.

    “…self awareness isn’t something that’s “earned” it is generally an innate trait, but may be taught. I would love to see how self awareness can be earned.”

    Keep wondering, Dave, that is a good first step! Self awareness has an innate element to be sure. But higher self awareness is earned through hard work. Hard work on the “self” that is. Often a lonely journey in which the teacher and the learner are one and the same.

    You could say that self awareness is learned rather than earned. But I chose “earned” to better reflect the sheer effort involved. If it was innate, then babies would be born with it. They’re not. And teachers generally don’t teach it.

    I wonder with you, if there might not be a case of the provernial ‘mechanics car’?

    Like

  79. D W Robinson says:

    And a few more climate champions that you can choose from:

    How on earth did you miss the clown of climate change, greedy global warming profiteer, sexual harasser, railway engineer and
    Laughably described as the world’s leading climate scientist.

    Like

  80. Mr E says:

    “I really struggle with trusting anything that comes from the discredited Heartland Institute or any scientist associated with it. ”

    Yet you and Heartland both support silica mining. Interesting that you support their views on that issue but not on climate science. Cherry picking?

    Like

  81. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, but you are applying your own scientific method to a branch of science that you have limited knowledge in, then cherry picking outlier science to support it.

    Would you do the same with medicine if you had a major health issue?. Obviously in medicine consensus shifts as new knowledge challenges the old, and it is the same with climate science. However, because there are decades of climate science and over 30 years of consensus, new findings tend to support the original understandings.

    Green policy is evidence based, hence the many references under our policies that show where they have originated. Our school hub policy came about because of the success of the model in some innovative schools that are already doing it. Few of our policies are really original but have a proven record elsewhere.

    “But higher self awareness is earned through hard work.”
    Really, Tracey? Please describe what “higher self-awareness” is, I’m not familiar with this term. I am sure there are different degrees of self awareness but this is another new area for me that I am eager to learn more about. You have taught me a few new things, I expect this is another 😉

    DWR, I certainly didn’t choose that one as a champion but I think it was his sexual problems that let him down rather than his science. A number of great men have had interesting sexual lives, I certainly don’t condone such behaviour. To give him credit Lord Monckton doesn’t have a difficult sexual history to my knowledge, although he does get excited about peerages and aristocracy 😉

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton

    Mr E, If the heartland institute support silica perhaps I need to do a rethink, however silica is a useful element in the manufacture of solar panels and the Heartland Institute writes continuous articles criticising all forms of alternative energy to oil and coal. The Heartland Institute has always consistently supported the industries that fund it, including the tobacco industry.
    http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12464/heartland-institute-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks

    Like

  82. Dave Kennedy says:

    Worth watching from 4:40. This is the real extent of the skeptic/denier influence now in the US, no credibility:

    Like

  83. Will Dwan says:

    Just as you would expect, Lord Monkton does not actually appear or get to speak. If you watch the excruciating humiliation of the Sierra Club’s hapless Aaron Mair by Senator Ted Cruz, you will understand why.

    Like

  84. farmerbraun says:

    “your own scientific method ”

    Nonsense!
    There is only one scientific method.

    That is the silliest thing that you have ever said . . . I think 🙂

    Like

  85. farmerbraun says:

    “Green policy is [selective] evidence based, . ….

    FIFY 🙂

    Like

  86. D W Robinson says:

    I think it was his sexual problems that let him down rather than his science. A number of great men have had interesting sexual lives

    “Interesting”, that’s a curious word to describe the sexual harassment of a 29 year old by her 74 year old boss. The green way of minimising wrongdoing, I guess.
    As for his “science”, he had a PhD in the economics of railway engineering from an obscure US university.

    May I refresh your memory a little?

    Checking the credibility of the source is important, that’s why I go to a dentist rather than a plumber to fix my teeth. I also believe that a massage therapist with an arts degree</strikethrough railway engineer would not be my first option as an expert on climate science.

    Like

  87. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    “Mr E, If the heartland institute support silica perhaps I need to do a rethink”

    I sent you a link from Heartland on the 3rd of August 2015 and over the following days you said:

    “Venture Southland the Heartland Institute are certainly on the same page with silica”
    “Thank you for the links and the research, they were very informative and it appears that it could be a relatively safe industry as long as the dust is managed carefully and the issues around water are addressed”

    I am curious, back in August, did you not do a rethink? It almost seems like you have a selective memory, easily forgetting discussions that don’t suit your narrative.

    My recommendation to you Dave, focus on the science, not the author. It is fair to say money plays a big role in all science, and if the source of that money or quantity could not be overlooked, very little science would ever be achieved.

    Like

  88. D W Robinson says:

    May I refresh your memory a little?

    Checking the credibility of the source is important, that’s why I go to a dentist rather than a plumber to fix my teeth. I also believe that a massage therapist with an arts degree railway engineer would not be my first option as an expert on climate science.

    Like

  89. Mr E says:

    I think we are on the same page DWR.

    I think it is odd that Dave has opted out of considering science, and it’s methodologies. Instead preferring the populist approach.

    For Dave, the quality of science seems defined by who is most likeable and has the most peer support.

    Now that we have established the shortcomings of this approach, I anticipate these climate change discussions will diminish somewhat.

    Is there a brain surgeon in the house ? – I think I might have said something wrong. My long and short term memory is failing me.

    Like

  90. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, I agree, it was a weak performance by the Sierra Club president.

    FB, it certainly does seem to be “your own scientific method” that you are using to reach the conclusions you have. What did you do to determine that human produced CO2 is not causing climate change?

    You are right the Greens select what is proven successful and reject ideas that are not. This seems to be a more logical approach then what National has used in education which involves inflicting the whole sector to untested systems like National Standards and Novopay.

    DWR, I never promoted the sex offender as a climate champion champion and abhor his behaviour in this regard (as most people would). I am happy to remove him from any list of Climate Scientists I could use to support my arguments.

    Mr E, science progresses through consensus, not populism. There is a very big difference and you are being very dishonest in pretending otherwise. It appears that I support scientific consensus while you hang your hat on outlier science instead. This practice is very concerning.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

    Like

  91. farmerbraun says:

    Good grief, I don’t know how many times I have repeated this.
    I have never said that anthropogenic CO2 is not causing climate change.

    Like

  92. farmerbraun says:

    “Science progresses through consensus”

    Well there we have it . . . a breakthrough.
    Your statement that we are approaching this from different angles is now validated.

    You see, I am completely convinced that science progresses only through the falsification of competing hypotheses.
    When all other possible theses have been falsified, and one only is left standing , then we have a scientific proof.
    Consensus does not come into it . . . anywhere.
    Finally , all is explained.
    The twain shall never meet.

    Like

  93. Mr E says:

    “Science progresses through consensus”

    There in lies the crux of your understanding issues. Science progresses through many avenues. Sometimes science progresses through opposition, disagreement, dissension, discord and refusal.

    Many many many great scientific discoveries have been unpopular at one time or another.

    If you deny that – you may as well believe the earth is flat.

    “there is a very big difference and you are being very dishonest in pretending otherwise”

    Oh dear Dave, I didn’t ‘pretend concensus science and populism were the same thing’.

    You are joining dots that don’t exist to frame me as dishonest as you so often do. That is a very unpleasant thing to do, and I think outside your Green Party values that suggest you should engage respectfully without personal attacks.

    Like

  94. Mr E says:

    Farmerbraun,

    That was somewhat of a ‘snap’ moment….

    Like

  95. D W Robinson says:

    For Dave, the quality of science seems defined by who is most likeable and has the most peer support.
    Yes indeed….
    But look out if that likability wanes a little….
    You get this….
    I am happy to remove him from any list of Climate Scientists I could use to support my arguments.
    Bye-bye Dr P!
    Oh dear.. a bit harsh don’t ya think?

    Like

  96. TraceyS says:

    “Mr E, science progresses through consensus, not populism.”

    Well that is indeed a bold claim! A fantasy, I believe.

    Actually, science progresses through discovery. Consensus may feature but it is not a necessary element.

    Obsessing over consensuses detracts from the importance of discovery, without which, there can be no consensus anyway.

    So discovery, and the process discovery, must always trump consensus. All those committed to the process of discovery, even when they are wrong (as will happen), should be shown some degree of basic respect.

    Like

  97. Mr E says:

    “I am happy to remove him from any list of Climate Scientists I could use to support my arguments.”

    “Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born 20 August 1940) was the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He held the post from 2002 until his resignation in 2015”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri

    There go the IPCC findings…… Discredited.

    Like

  98. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Good grief, I don’t know how many times I have repeated this.
    I have never said that anthropogenic CO2 is not causing climate change.”
    FB, But your comments continue to question the accuracy of the claims as if they are not credible. The weight of evidence falls heavily on the side of considerable impacts through man made emissions.

    “Science progresses through many avenues. Sometimes science progresses through opposition, disagreement, dissension, discord and refusal.”

    Mr E, I don’t disagree with this at all, but after that process continues for some time, and all the doubt and rough edges are dealt with, consensus is achieved. It is a waste of time to relitigate areas that have well and truly been debated and tested unless new information comes along. The Heartland Institute, the Wattsupwiththat blog and Lord Monckton are not contributing anything of value and much that they promote is psuedoscience according to actual climate scientists.

    Perhaps you can find a link where any of the above mentioned have contributed positively to climate science and gained peer reviewed support. It appears that all they do is: “disagreement, dissension, discord and refusal”, but over time it does become tiresome if they add little of value.

    DWR, misrepresentation is not an honest form of debate, you expressed real concerns about the behaviour of one of thousands of climate scientists, if that creates a barrier for you for accepting the value of climate science then it is counter productive for me to even attempt to defend him (and I didn’t even promote him in the first place). There are many others, as you noted, who have much more credible credentials and I am happy to refer to them instead 😉

    Like

  99. Dave Kennedy says:

    “There go the IPCC findings…… Discredited.”

    What a ridiculous comment, Mr E. Perhaps we should reject the principles and values of the civil rights movement in the United States led by Martin Luther King because of his morality?
    http://www.ibtimes.com/martin-luther-king-cheated-his-wife-other-lesser-known-facts-about-civil-rights-leader-mlk-day

    Climate Science’s value is in the body of research that has been built over time and discrediting all climate science because of one man’s personal behaviour (even if he was in a leadership role) is nuts. You do rush to dramatic and extreme conclusions.

    Tracey, discovery is actually one small aspect that leads to new knowledge, in many situations nothing is discovered at all but a hypothesis is supported. Many scientists look at the consensus position and develop a prediction or hypothesis based on that. They then do the research and collect data to see if they can be supported in practice. What results isn’t necessarily a “discovery” or eureka moment but just a progression of understanding based on solid and ongoing research.

    To say that discovery “trumps” consensus is nonsensical they both contribute to science advancement. One is based on serendipity, or chance the other is the very important formal confirmation that the discovery is real and has value.

    Like

  100. TraceyS says:

    What did you do to determine that human produced CO2 is not causing climate change?”

    Farmerbraun didn’t imply that. In fact, throughout these discussions, he has clearly stated exactly the opposite ie. that the null hypothesis (above) cannot be rejected.

    Any research which sets out on a mission to prove something is inherently biased. The right approach, as been pointed out many times now, is to state the hypothesis and then set about to reject the null hypothesis rather than to try and prove the hypothesis.

    So H1 might be (based on Dave’s example above):

    “Human produced CO2 causes climate change.”

    You don’t start with trying to prove that but rather disproving (ie. rejecting) the null hypothesis, that is:

    H0: “Human produced CO2 does not cause climate change.”

    Someone correct me if I am wrong, but that cannot be disproved at this point in time through valid experiment. So the null hypothesis cannot be rejected (0=null). Simply stated, it cannot be said that human produced CO2 does not cause climate change. It may well do.

    So you can see that the discussion of the so-called deniers is valuable because if, at some stage, “human produced CO2 does not cause climate change” can be absolutely ruled out, then H1 is ready for a valid experiment. All of the thinking and all of the discussion has a role to play.

    But here’s the important bit. The present inability to reject the null hypothesis does not in itself prove that the alternative hypothesis is true, which in this case is “human produced CO2 causes climate change”. It just means that more exploratory research needs to be done to formulate a a valid experiment. Much of the current climate research is exploratory in nature and method. One day someone will postulate an hypothesis which will lead to a valid experiment.

    Maybe.

    Like

  101. TraceyS says:

    Dave

    “Tracey…in many situations nothing is discovered at all but a hypothesis is supported.”

    Not discovering what you might be searching for is a discovery itself which can be learned from. It is fundamentally no different to discovering what you are looking for.

    “Many scientists look at the consensus position and develop a prediction or hypothesis based on that. They then do the research and collect data to see if they can be supported in practice.”

    Yes they do. But research is much, much more than data collection. Data collection is a vital step but it doesn’t stop there. Establishing causation requires hypothesis testing. Data is simply an input into that process.

    “What results isn’t necessarily a “discovery” or eureka moment but just a progression of understanding based on solid and ongoing research.”

    The process of formulating valid experiments is a progression of knowledge which builds on what has been discovered previously. A researcher doesn’t have to agree with prior findings (be in consensus) but it would pay to acknowledge prior accepted research. By the way, where did you get the idea that by “discovery” I meant “eureka moment”?

    “To say that discovery “trumps” consensus is nonsensical they both contribute to science advancement. One is based on serendipity, or chance the other is the very important formal confirmation that the discovery is real and has value.”

    Surely you regard consensus as serendipitous/fortuitous and discovery as formal confirmation? Not the other way around. Please tell me you don’t think it is the other way around….!

    Like

  102. TraceyS says:

    Surely you regard consensus as serendipitous/fortuitous and discovery as formal confirmation? Not the other way around. Please tell me you don’t think it is the other way around….!

    Like

  103. Mr E says:

    Hilarious Dave,
    You understand what satire is?

    Of course I don’t think IPCC findings are discredited because of the Chairmans actions. Readings some of my earlier comments would make you well aware of that.

    Your subsequent rant suggests you have missed the point.

    One minute you say it is not about the science it is about the man. The next minute you say it is not about the man it is about the science.

    They are strange double standards that undermine your position.

    Like

  104. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, ‘The Merchants of Doubt” is a useful book to read because it shows how creating doubt in the consensus will delay action. This worked for tobacco companies, manufacturers of CFCs and the fossil fuel industry. Creating doubt through popularising climate psuedoscience puts pressure on governments not act in a timely fashion or to delay putting in place climate strategies. Unbelievable as it may seem, our Government has no climate strategy, it is relying on market forces to lead change. That is not leadership it is just avoiding responsibility.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/278582/nz's-climate-change-target-condemned

    Like

  105. farmerbraun says:

    “The weight of evidence ”

    There you go again Dave.
    Read again Tracey’s post on falsification. The “weight” of evidence is irrelevant if it does not falsify the Null hypothesis.

    The current state of knowledge of climatology does not allow us to either PROVE or DISPROVE the thesis that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of observed warming (assuming that there was some to observe).

    Like

  106. farmerbraun says:

    “creating doubt in the consensus ”

    Unanimous and total belief in the consensus does not make it true.

    The Emperors New Clothes 🙂

    Like

  107. TraceyS says:

    “Creating doubt through popularising climate psuedoscience…”

    Is that what you think I am doing? To my knowledge I have never posted references to any pseudoscience.

    “our Government…is not leadership it is just avoiding responsibility…”

    Leadership is not leadership without taking people along with you. You cannot tell people what to think, even if the Government were to send every household in the country a personalised copy The Merchants of Doubt and pass a law forcing them to read it.

    The best that you can do is to find out what they think and work with it as best you can.

    Like

  108. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, sadly it is you misrepresenting me again, I have continually said that the mass of climate science and the consensus achieved is the most compelling argument. It is you guys who keep throwing up individual scientists (with dubious credentials) to claim that their individual comments throw doubt on all the science.

    Suggesting that scientific consensus is popularism and shouldn’t be trusted is so completely off target as it effectively rejects the body of scientific knowledge that currently exists.

    Like

  109. Dave Kennedy says:

    “The best that you can do is to find out what they think and work with it as best you can.”

    Doing that, but again closed minded thinking dominates 😛

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/51HansQ_20150602_00000002/2-climate-change%E2%80%94collaboration-with-other-parties

    The Government also claims that our country can’t do much because most of our emissions come from agriculture and restricting those emissions will have too great an economic impact. We then showed how it could be down by leaving out agriculture for 5 years and this was also rejected.

    https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-releases/yes-we-can-green-climate-plan-shows-40-target-2030-achievable

    You will also be aware of the increased risk of sea level rises that councils are going to have to manage. There are huge costs involved in doing nothing:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11365463

    Like

  110. farmerbraun says:

    The really good thing about all this is that we are going to test the hypothesis.
    India and China are building coal – fired generation as fast as they can , and atmospheric CO 2 will be doubled in no time.
    Within a decade or three we should have a number for ECS – the magic factor which the IPCC , in AR 5, refused to put a number on.

    Anyone want to bet that the number is 0.5 deg C or less per doubling of CO2?

    Like

  111. Dave Kennedy says:

    “The really good thing about all this is that we are going to test the hypothesis.”

    I actually hope in many ways that the IPCC and all the climate scientists are wrong because it appears that timely action will not occur. Chances are i may experience some difficult climate changes in my life time but it is likely to be catastrophic for our kids and grandkids. This is the reality that shifted James Hansen from purely a scientist to an activist. He describes it well in his book “Storms of my Grandchildren”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storms_of_My_Grandchildren

    This is my experience of meeting him in person in 2011:
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/gore-hosts-hansen.html

    Like

  112. farmerbraun says:

    “I actually hope in many ways that the IPCC and all the climate scientists are wrong ”
    Dave , really that just shows that you don’t read the IPCC Science Summary. There is nothing there that leads to positive conclusions of catastrophe.

    On the other hand if you just read the Summary for Policy makers , and believe the predictions therein, predictions that are not supported by the science section, then I agree, it is to be hoped that those predictions are wrong. Certainly there is no science which supports those dire predictions with any reasonable degree of certainty.

    Like

  113. TraceyS says:

    Dave, in your link to oral questions your co-leader asks about “putting their [political] differences aside…” for the cause and yet even at our level you can’t manage to sustain that for one comment thread!

    Remember saying you don’t respect my views on womens’ issues because of….(political reasons)? Calling me offensive names and blaming me for worker deaths for….(political reasons)? What confidence can I have that you won’t refuse to listen to or respect my views on climate change for political reasons?

    Like

  114. farmerbraun says:

    That crap from James Shaw shows that he is naive at best , a liar at worst.
    If China and India do not eschew their massive expansion of coal burning , or even if they do, whatever is done in Godzone will have no discernible impact on the physical world.
    Only an utter fool would believe otherwise.
    We have lead the world in banning subsidy , and espousing free and fair trade.
    And . . . . . .?

    Like

  115. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    I thought my point went well over your head. Then I read this:
    “It is you guys who keep throwing up individual scientists (with dubious credentials)”
    “This is the reality that shifted James Hansen from purely a scientist to an activist.”

    And that confirmed it.

    Like

  116. farmerbraun says:

    And without a trace of irony.
    You could not make it up.

    Like

  117. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, I called you no offensive names, I challenged you about the consequences of your vote and suggested what may cause you to support unethical policies. I guess it is your right to believe that discrimination against women is acceptable. For me it is not a political issue but a moral issue.

    FB, New Zealand’s emissions per capita are amongst the highest in the world, even more than China. We need to do our share and with a leadership role in the UN we should be setting an example to others. As far as I’m concerned being a follower does not suit New Zealand’s character, we led with the women’s vote, had a role in ending apartheid in South Africa, led the opposition to nuclear weapons and was the first country in the world to have a Green Party compete in a national election (the Values Party manifesto has become a foundation document for Green Parties globally). Yet for climate change our target is one of the lowest in the world and our government has no strategy. I heard on the radio news tonight how local authorities want national guidelines for dealing with rising sea levels as it has been left to each authority to design their own.

    I do wonder about leading the world as one of the most open economies when we are rapidly becoming tenants in our own land. We don’t appear to have done much better than many more protectionist economies. We are certainly known as a low wage economy compared to many in the OECD.

    Mr E, you will have to explain to me what ‘activist’ means to you.

    This a dictionary meaning:
    “a ​person who ​believes ​strongly in ​political or ​social ​change and ​takes ​part in ​activities such as ​public ​protests to ​try to make this ​happen”

    This sounds noble to me and describes what I do myself. You obviously believe the the suffragettes, anti apartheid marches, the mining in national park protests were somehow wrong? Have you never protested in some way yourself?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/idUS257590805720110829

    Like

  118. farmerbraun says:

    Dave it is now too late for NZ to lead by calling bullshit on the CAGW rort.
    China and India and Russia have got way out in front.
    But we could still catch up.
    It’s still good to be on the winning team.

    Like

  119. Name Withheld says:

    Tracey, I called you no offensive names,

    “It is the complacency and lack of resolve from women like yourself who allow this ongoing discrimination to occur. Your argument isn’t discerning, it is just disappointing. You have obviously had some challenges in your life in the past that has caused you to be so submissive and compliant. There is no way you can defend this government for its obvious disregard for women.

    Boy oh boy I would hate to read your comments when you do decide to get offensive. Particularly towards a woman!

    I guess it is your right to believe that discrimination against women is acceptable.

    And I guess it is your right to make stuff up an just put words into TraceyS’s mouth.

    Try and get more sleep, Mr Kennedy, you just become more and more incoherent when you stay up late.

    Like

  120. farmerbraun says:

    Here is one just for you Dave ; I know that you’ll endorse it .

    The Royal Society: Philosophical Transactions: Uncertainty as knowledge
    Authors: Stephan Lewandowsky, Timothy Ballard, Richard D. Pancost

    Published 12 October 2015. DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0462

    Abstract: This issue of Philosophical Transactions examines the relationship between scientific uncertainty about climate change and knowledge.
    Uncertainty is an inherent feature of the climate system.
    Considerable effort has therefore been devoted to understanding how to effectively respond to a changing, yet uncertain climate. Politicians and the public often appeal to uncertainty as an argument to delay mitigative action.
    We argue that the appropriate response to uncertainty is exactly the opposite: uncertainty provides an impetus to be concerned about climate change, because greater uncertainty increases the risks associated with climate change.

    We therefore suggest that uncertainty can be a source of actionable knowledge. [ WTF ?]

    We survey the papers in this issue, which address the relationship between uncertainty and knowledge from physical, economic and social perspectives.
    We also summarize the pervasive psychological effects of uncertainty, some of which may militate against a meaningful response to climate change, and we provide pointers to how those difficulties may be ameliorated.
    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2055/20140462

    No , you can’t make this stuff up 🙂

    Like

  121. farmerbraun says:

    It is inexplicable that the MSM are not carrying reportage of Patrick Moore.
    Ele?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

    Like

  122. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    “You obviously believe the the suffragettes, anti apartheid marches, the mining in national park protests were somehow wrong? ”

    You obviouslyTM have comprehension issues that result in the drawing of nasty unkind conclusions?

    See what I did there?

    Like

  123. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, I agree that was a little harsh but hardly name calling. Tracey lectures to me quite regularly about my own behaviour and has shared some of the difficulties she has had in her life. I thought it was reasonable to surmise that they may have contributed to her accepting the obvious discrimination of women within the National Party and their policies. She didn’t dispute any of the facts I listed regarding this.

    FB, I sure you can produce dozens of articles and individuals that support your argument but they still reflect a very tiny minority view compared to the huge bulk of consensus supported science.

    The Patrick Moore story is a sad one as his current motivation is more about financial gain than truth or environmental morality.
    http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

    Your general argument is not a sound one because it is based on the premise that if there is some uncertainty (the degree of uncertainty of key elements is actually very small) then this is an argument to do nothing.

    If the police were to receive a warning from an unknown source regarding a bomb having been placed in a building containing hundreds of people, I’m sure that they would act on it despite the potential unreliability of the source. Even if they had received many other similar warnings that had proved to be false they would be stupid to ignore it on the small chance that it was a real threat.

    Climate scientists have produced a huge body of evidence, with broad consensus, that a life threatening event is about to occur. This is not a random or unreliable source, scientists were right about the ozone layer and the effects of smoking tobacco, their track record is solid. There are things that can be done to avert it that are cheaper than the bailing out of corrupt financial institutions after the GFC and waging a war in Iraq and Syria.

    In the highly unlikely event that climate scientists are misguided or wrong (current data and observations support a worsening situation) then a shift to cleaner energy and a healthier planet is still of value.

    In NZ building healthier, more energy efficient homes for thousands of poor families is a social good as well as good for the climate. Improving public transport in Auckland and removing lots of cars from the roads is good. Having sustainable stock numbers on farms so that we don’t have to import feed and add value to our milk makes economic as well as environmental sense.

    China now leads the world in manufacturing solar panels and there are important health reasons for shifting away from coal power plants. Per capita China is doing far more than NZ. It is actually a win win to make a concerted effort to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel.

    New Zealand would be stupid and negligent not to make more effort to reduce our emissions. The Government is actually spending more to subsidise the fossil fuel industry than supporting cleaner alternatives. Its policies have also seen the removal of forests that had provided useful carbon sinks. Our emissions have increased by 13% under this government.

    Like

  124. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, if you don’t want me to make assumptions you will have to explain what you meant regarding Hansen’s activism. It was clear that you thought that it had a negative impact on his credibility 😉

    Like

  125. tom hunter says:

    Would you do the same with medicine if you had a major health issue?. Obviously in medicine consensus shifts as new knowledge challenges the old, and it is the same with climate science.

    After 40 years the US government is now looking at withdrawing their recommendations about reducing the consumption of whole milk to reduce heart disease. New studies – covering thousands of people and years of data – have revealed the rather surprising result that people who drank whole milk suffered lower rates of heart disease.

    But more than this is that it now turns out that the original studies in the 1960’s and 70’s were “flawed”, in the sense that drawing conclusions from thin statistical causality results led to the government overblowing the entire “low fat” industry that developed. I did love this comment in a WaPo article on the subject:

    It also has raised questions about the scientific foundations of the government’s diet advice: To what extent did the federal government, and the diet scientists they relied upon, go wrong? When the evidence is incomplete on a dietary question, should the government refrain from making recommendations?

    Turning our capitalist, industrialised society upside down is a far greater demand, with far greater consequences. Funny how that “insurance risk factor” never enters into the equation, any more than did the health risks of a “low fat” diet did. risks? What risks?

    Settled science baby.

    Like

  126. Name Withheld says:

    I thought it was reasonable to surmise that they may have contributed to her accepting the obvious discrimination of women within the National Party and their policies.

    What a patronising piece of crap that is.
    You just don’t get it, do you?
    When in a hole and all that…………….?

    Like

  127. Mr E says:

    ” if you don’t want me to make assumptions you will have to explain what you meant ”

    I wonder why you dont apply the same level of scrutiny to climate science?

    My explanations have never stopped you making false assumptions of meaning in past – I doubt they would now.

    “It was clear that you thought that it had a negative impact on his credibility ;-)”

    Case in point. I never made any remark regarding Hansens activism or it’s impact on his credibility.

    As has been pointed out over and over and over on this blog, you make up lies and pose them as others views. Do you think this nice thing to do? Do you think it fits with your Green Party values?

    I believe that behaviour does not fit with the Green Party values. Tell me, what is the process for challenging a members adhesion to the Party values?

    Like

  128. farmerbraun says:

    Yeah right Dave, the last 40 years that I have been organic farming . . . well really I have been doing nothing.
    Honestly , if you do not know what the problem is , then how can you determine the corrective action ?

    Like

  129. farmerbraun says:

    ” a life- threatening event is about to occur”

    It is not Patrick Moore who is the sad person 🙂

    We simply must tell the King!

    Am I correct in surmising that you did not read the speech?

    Like

  130. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tom, based on your approach then we should encourage our kids to eat more sugar if the health consensus says it’s bad. That is clearly nonsense.

    You yourself said that the US based their recommendations on a “thin statistical casualty results” so the work wasn’t extensive and was eventually found to be flawed.

    You can’t compare climate science to that example, the conclusions and consensus around climate science is based on a massive amount of combined data and research that has been ongoing for many decades.

    I agree with you regarding the milk issue in the US, the research that they were basing their recommendation on was not extensive or robust.

    Shifting our economy to ones based on cleaner renewables, growing more trees, improving public transport and reducing our current account deficit by not having to import so much oil and supplementary feed makes sense to me, even if one didn’t believe in climate change. Other places are doing this already and it has actually had economic as well as environmental benefits.

    Your argument is flawed 😉

    NW, if you want to read patronising read the comments that are constantly directed at me. I was being deliberately provocative in Tracey’s situation because it frustrates the hell out of me that female supporters of National aren’t applying pressure to change discriminating practices. A lot of my work in the past involved advocating for women in education who were doing highly responsible and skilled work but were being paid the minimum wage. Males doing less skilled work are being paid much more. When I first started work the male was considered to be the main income earner and many women were unpaid “homemakers” who sometimes worked part time to supplement the family income. Those were the days when families could survive and even buy a house on one income.

    Times have changed and there is an expectation that all women and mothers should be in work. A high % of families have only one parent, generally the mother, and yet they are expected to support a family on the incomes generated by the low paid “women’s work” available to them. The courts, support agencies and commonsense recognises the widespread discrimination in pay for jobs that are female dominated. Compare the pay of a nurse in a resthome with foreman of a roadworks crew and compare their academic qualifications and levels of responsibility. This government expects mothers of young children to be in work but forces them into low waged, service jobs and has removed their ability to train and work in more skilled employment. The gap in pay is widening again and you are lecturing me about my concern that Tracey is being complacent and passively accepting what the party she votes for is doing? Really?

    Mr E, I gave you an opportunity to explain what you meant and you give me that slippery evasive comment. If you are not open, honest and direct in your views and comments then you can hardly criticise me for making assumptions. You are full of bluff and bluster, I still haven’t had contact from the Feds and you lecture me about values and credibility 😛

    Our Soil seminar last night a was success despite the fact that there were competing events on the same evening. We had around 40 people (mainly farmers) listen to presentations from Prof Richard Morgan from Otago University; Jodi Halleux, an impressive consultant who deals with contaminated land (sheep dip sites etc) and someone from Beef and Lamb promoting LEPs. Mainland Minerals and Agrisea sponsored the event, it was a pity you couldn’t make it.

    Like

  131. Name Withheld says:

    As I hinted at earlier, Mr Kennedy……
    Just stop digging.
    Your arguements are going nowhere. You are just thrashing about now.

    Like

  132. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Am I correct in surmising that you did not read the speech?”

    FB, I certainly did and it is clearly evidence that Moore has sold his soul to his current employers. Moore has shifted from being an environmental activists to a fossil fuel lackey, sad indeed.

    Moore also makes outrageous claims that he isn’t prepared to stand by, he has no credibility.

    http://time.com/3761053/monsanto-weed-killer-drink-patrick-moore/

    “We simply must tell the King!”

    It is all your so called champions that are being exposed instead 😉

    Like

  133. tom hunter says:

    The Paris deal is going to be more fun to watch than the Copenhagen affair.

    A few days ago India submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (or INDC) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    The INDC covers India’s climate policies to date and lays out its plans to reduce emissions 33-35% by 2030. According to this document, India will need $2.5 trillion of foreign aid in order to take the appropriate steps.

    Muhahahahahaha.

    Yeah – I can really see the developed world handing that over! Also, the INDC makes it clear that of the $2.5 trillion, most will be spent on “adaptation actions”. Only $883 billion will be used to actually reduce emissions.

    Modi’s a smart cookie. I’d like to think he had a smile on his face when he got that drafted.

    Like

  134. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, no digging just heaps of arguments that you don’t directly respond to.

    Where am I factually incorrect about employment discrimination?

    You are right, in this area I am definitely thrashing you! 😉

    Like

  135. D W Robinson says:

    Moore has shifted from being an environmental activists to a fossil fuel lackey, sad indeed.

    Moore also makes outrageous claims that he isn’t prepared to stand by, he has no credibility.

    The discrediting of Willis EschenbachPatrick Moore starting….In
    Three….
    Two….
    One……

    Here we go again. How predictable is that.
    Attack the man as usual.

    Like

  136. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tom,

    India: GDP per capita $1,498, Carbon emissions per capita 1.7 mt
    NZ: GDP per capita $29,201, Carbon emissions per capita 7.2 mt

    Surely we have moral responsibility to do our share.

    Your response: “Muhahahahahaha. Yeah – I can really see the developed world handing that over!”

    Isn’t that the problem? As we have a leadership role in the UN shouldn’t we be doing our share and supporting others who don’t have the same economic capacity.

    Currently New Zealand donates 60c per capita to the UNs Climate Fund one of the lowest in the developed world.

    Sweden’s per capita donation is $60, Britain’s is $19, The US $9 and Australia $8

    Our Paris climate target is also one of the lowest in the developed world.

    It is actually very embarrassing and you obviously support this.

    Like

  137. tom hunter says:

    Thankfully India is prospering as they turn away from the idiotic Fabian Socialism that held them in thrall (and in poverty) for so many decades.

    Modi is the most capitalist promoting PM India has ever had, even with the last twenty years of deregulation behind them. He’s also a firm believer in science and technology welded to capitalism, hence there are great things happening in India like this, India Turns to Thorium as Future Reactor Fuel:

    Ratan Kumar Sinha, chairman of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in Mumbai, recently told the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper, “The basic physics and engineering of the thorium-fueled Advanced Heavy Water Reactor are in place, and the design is ready.” He said the Indian government has begun a six-month search for a site for the 300-megawatt reactor while conducting confirmatory tests on the final design.

    India’s Advanced Heavy Water Reactor design would use the country’s abundant thorium supply. Sinha said the reactor could be operational by the end of the decade.

    One of the three elements widely considered to be useful in the generation of nuclear energy, thorium is three to four times more plentiful than uranium and is widely distributed in nature. India has one of the world’s largest thorium deposits.

    Good to see, especially since the moribund US nuclear industry has not been picking up the ball and running with it. I see China pushing along the Thorium path as well as building more nuclear reactors.

    Capitalism will do for energy what it has already done for extreme poverty:

    Looks like it’s going to be a great 21st century.

    Like

  138. farmerbraun says:

    Dave , so you accept the challenge that Moore threw down , to prove him wrong.
    I really am looking forward to you telling us why the facts , and the logical deduction from those facts, are all wrong.

    It will make a welcome change from argumentum ad vericundiam , ad populum , ad hominem, ad nauseam. 🙂

    P.S. That last one is NOT a logical fallacy. 🙂

    Like

  139. Mr E says:

    Dave

    ” I gave you an opportunity to explain ”

    No Dave, You said my point was clear and obvious to you. Even though you are wrong, why would I would give you an explanation when you have posed lies as my views? You will need to retract your incorrect assumptions if you want my explanation.

    ” I still haven’t had contact from the Feds and you lecture me about values and credibility ”

    I am not a Fed – I can’t control what they do. Speaking logically, why would they put you in front of a bunch of farmers, to spout your abusive remarks when communities are rallying around farmers in support?

    “Our Soil seminar last night a was success”

    Yes I hear you had attendees. I am interested in your claim that they were mostly farmers. What sort of farmers?

    I would have been interested in listening, but I had more pressing matters to attend to. And frankly speaking your seminar was about 4th on the list regarding priorities. So timing was not favourable.

    I would read a summary on your blog were you to post it.

    Also your missed my question. What is the accountability process regarding the Green Party values. How members be challenged?

    Like

  140. tom hunter says:

    I’ve just found this old comment:

    Tom, based on your approach then we should encourage our kids to drink more whole milk if the health consensus says it’s bad. That is clearly nonsense.

    It’s from 2005! 🙂

    Like

  141. Dave Kennedy says:

    DWR, As said I said before most do for themselves. Moore made the stupid and outrageous claim that Roundup was so safe for people that he was prepared to drink a cup of it to prove it, when one was offered he declined and stopped the interview. You guys need to choose your champions more carefully. It is like you think that bantamweight boxers with poor fight stats are appropriate heavyweight challengers. It is you guys who are predictable, I can’t wait to see the next champion you put into the ring…

    Here is the challenge for you. Find some actual climate scientists who aren’t over 80, who haven’t got direct connections to the coal and oil industries, who aren’t connected to the Heartland Institute and have some recent (last 10 years) peer reviewed research and you will have some credible champions to go up against the thousands of climate scientists doing honest transparent research.

    Rather than the Chicken Licken story FB was referring to I like the Emperor’s no clothes one instead. Almost all your so called champions have their cloaks of credibility whipped away with a quick Google search 😉

    Like

  142. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tom, good grief! That is your response?

    Like

  143. Paranormal says:

    When it comes to making **it up – DK at 10.09 Oct 14 “ACT had not campaigned on [Charter Schools]”
    It seems the Herald says DK is doing politics rather than facts: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11318886
    Perhaps we can assume a similar standard applies with all DK’s statements?

    As for ‘consensus’ (otherwise known as politics) as opposed to science when it comes to climate change, Dk would have us believe another respected scientist has been bought by big oil when he has just pointed out the obvious: http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/

    As you say DWR cue “The discrediting of Prof Hal Lewis starting….In
    Three….
    Two….
    One……”

    And DK, I have pointed out what your comments and actions equal on a few occasions. You say you were offended with my stating the obvious. If it wasn’t ok for me why is it ok for you to do the same with TraceyS?

    Like

  144. tom hunter says:

    A massive example of scientific conclusions converted into “Do This Or Else” instructions via government: Multiple scientific studies over many years have concluded ….., the overwhelming weight of evidence is that …. – only to fall apart decades later.

    The upcoming failure of the Paris IPCC event – as evidenced by hilariously crafted demands-designed-to-fail from the developing world.

    The advance of Thorium reactors and nuclear power.

    Capitalism succeeding with energy the way it has with poverty.

    Attempting to get a Green to actually think.

    Yes – these are my responses.

    Like

  145. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Yes I hear you had attendees. I am interested in your claim that they were mostly farmers. What sort of farmers?”

    The ones I knew were sheep and beef. I would be interested to know from your contacts whether it was worthwhile or should we have a different mix of speakers next time? We didn’t have a feedback sheet.

    Mr E, good grief, why an earth would you be reluctant to explain what you meant by your comment? I will make another assumption based on your comments (that you hysterically call lies):

    I believe that you are a master of reversing. I bet you can reverse a truck into a pretty tight spot 😉

    Can I provide some advice at this point? I can see your line of argument is going to shift from the topic and the facts and head to the personal yet again. Ele has already pulled us up for this and if you truly care about my Green values, let’s take the conversation out of this forum, it is becoming too personal, very tedious and not at all constructive.

    Like

  146. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, there is a big difference between having something as policy and campaigning on it. The Greens have lots of policy that we didn’t use in our campaigns.

    Yes Prof Hal Lewis did make those claims just before he died but there was no evidence to support them. Here was the response from the APS, to provide balance:
    http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

    Tom, Picketty sums up the natural conclusion of poorly managed capitalist economies and there are similar examples in the growth and collapse of empires. The current state of the US as an economic empire is similar to that of the Roman and British empires before, the TPP is part of the death throes of a corrupted and failing economy. It’s debt is huge, its infrastructure is falling apart and its power and influence is rapidly being lost to China. It’s economy is now based around consumption and the wealth and privilege of the 1% and capital gain rather than productive industry. It has lost its domination as a powerhouse manufacturer with a skilled and affluent working class.

    Green thinking says that there is a logical limit to encouraging unlimited consumption of finite resources and moving away from sustainable economic management.

    Surely you must be concerned about the way market forces have dealt to Solid Energy, our housing market, Fonterra, and its contribution to the GFC? Climate change is being managed in a similar way. Our balanced books are no achievement as it wasn’t produced from a growing economy but sucking money from areas that would actually stimulate it. Here is a good summary:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11529757

    “Attempting to get a Green to actually think.”

    I am comfortable with my thinking, I think you need to re-evaluate your own 😉

    Like

  147. Mr E says:

    “The ones I knew were sheep and beef.”
    How many of the 40 were sheep and beef?

    “I would be interested to know from your contacts whether it was worthwhile or should we have a different mix of speakers next time? We didn’t have a feedback sheet.”

    I will see what I can do.
    I suspect you have a rough feel, based on the animation of the crowd, then again, in my experience some older ladies and gents can be harder read.

    “Mr E, good grief, why an earth would you be reluctant to explain what you meant by your comment?”

    As I have explained Dave, as you think my point was ‘clear’ and ‘obvious’, it seems pointless to explain anything under this premise.
    Unless your want to retract you ‘clear’ and ‘obvious’ claims.

    “I believe that you are a master of reversing. I bet you can reverse a truck into a pretty tight spot ;-)”

    Like you dont want to judge your field day success, I don’t want to judge my truck reversing.

    That aside I understand what you are suggesting. I am not reversing out of anything. I simply don’t like to explain anything to people who arrogantly think they know it all. I generally like to leave arrogance to it’s self fulfilling failure. One reason why I often question my presence here.

    “Ele has already pulled us up for this”

    Part of Ele’s issue was off topic discussions. This is soapbox territory.

    Her other concern was making the debate personal. And whilst I can sense this discussion has a personal element, I think I am keeping above board.

    I’d be happier if you abided by your Green Party values, which is why I questioned accountability. But I guess that will be an endless dodge fest.

    Frankly speaking I am mortified by your remarks to Tracey. I think she deserves a lot better from you. Tracey engages very respectfully and I am shocked by what you have sent back her way of late.

    But that is Tracey’s battle, and I know her well enough to respect that she can stick up for herself. And I also am doing what I can to engage without personal attacks.

    Like

  148. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, I didn’t know all the people in attendance, I may even be wrong about the number of farmers, it was an assumption based on the fact that it was promoted in the farming community, the presentations were farming related and it was held in the Winton Pub. If you know otherwise let me know? I knew 6 Sheep and Beef farmers in attendance because they are were either Green party members or spouses of one. Are you testing me and for what purpose? 😉

    “This is soapbox territory.”
    It certainly is, full of personal dramas. But I don’t think it is what Ele intended.

    As for my comments regarding Tracey, you and she have similar debating styles, very emotive. Given Tracey’s transparent glee at witnessing me being taken apart by a group of Federated Farmers, my questioning her understanding of how National treat women was pretty mild.

    Like

  149. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    My math isn’t as good as it could be, is 6 farmers out of 40 a good measure of “mainly farmers”?

    Forgive me if I am wrong but I would have thought there would have to be over 20 to be “mainly”?

    Now I bet you are left wondering if I knew the answer all along…..;-)

    Regarding the quality of your day, I usually like to see a little more hands on activity in a meeting about soil structure. If you ever need a speaker, look me up. I used to be employed to assess soil structure. I may not be the best reverser, or mathematician, but I can sure swing a spade.

    (these skills came about after my drain layers apprenticeship)

    “Tracey’s transparent glee at witnessing me being taken apart by a group of Federated Farmers,”

    Back the truck up….. Did I miss something? When did the Feds ‘take you apart”. Details —— Paaaallleeeaaaassssseeee…..

    Tracey – please tell me you got that on video.

    Like

  150. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, Moores presentation was based on the fact that carbon concentrations were greater in the past and it is one of the key building bricks of life, he tried to create the idea that we have more to fear about the lack of carbon, rather than too much. What scientists would say in rebuttal, I’m sure, that it is the speed of change that is most concerning. Species can adapt to gradual change and greater temperatures or concentrations of carbon, but the sudden change that is occurring currently is already seeing plants and animals struggling to survive and adapt and will cause a mass extinction. Turbulent weather patterns and extreme storms are also related to rapid change.

    Again I am not a climate scientist but if you want alternative views to Moore’s here are two:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140331-global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-animals-science-environment/

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

    Like

  151. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E you are pedantic, I don’t give a damn what you think about the talk and who was there. It was a real talk and real people were present. You may even have been present yourself for all i know, or planted a spy (given what you have said in the past, and the nonsense now, I wouldn’t put it past you). How about sharing your own summary of the meeting, I would love to hear it 😉

    Yet again, you add to your mythical CV about being a master of everything agricultural. If you truly are confident in your credentials you would just give me your contact details directly. Because you don’t and continue playing your childish hide and seek game you leave me to assume it is all a sham and a bluff like your connections with the Feds.

    I won’t even bother commenting on the Tracey bit. Good grief.

    Like

  152. Name Withheld says:

    Given Tracey’s transparent glee at witnessing me being taken apart by a group of Federated Farmers, my questioning her understanding of how National treat women was pretty mild.

    The thing is you didn’t.

    Would you describe…
    “complacency and lack of resolve from women like yourself”
    And
    “caused you to be so submissive and compliant.”
    as questioning?
    I sure as hell wouldn’t

    Like

  153. tom hunter says:

    The current state of the US as an economic empire is similar to that of the Roman and British empires before ….

    Yawn ……. The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers

    That’s Paul Kennedy’s intellectual take on your message. It was a total favourite of lefties like you as they excitedly drew exactly the same comparisons and issued dark warnings about the US economy, defence spending and their ‘insane’ competition with the Soviets. We were all dooooommmmmed.

    That was in 1987 of course. The ink was barely dry before the USSR and all it’s minions collapsed on to Reagan’s “ash heap of history” and the US charged ahead through the 1990’s.

    Yeah, I’ve jumped up and down about the debt too but hey, Keynes rules according to your side: more debt to fuel more consumption. But it’s all in US $, China will get old before it gets rich, and I’ve supplied you before with links before that refute your stupid manufacturing and productivity myths about the US – which you must have ignored as you’re back here repeating the claims.

    Again. As I expected and as per usual.

    You never learn, which is a good indication about your ability to think – and in relation to you I use that word only in its broadest possible sense.

    Like

  154. Mr E says:

    “I don’t give a damn what you think about the talk ”

    “How about sharing your own summary of the meeting, I would love to hear it ;-)”

    Is there a brain surgeon in the house??? Anyone 🙂

    “Yet again, you add to your mythical CV about being a master of everything agricultural”

    Now now…. Try not to get personal.

    ” If you truly are confident in your credentials you would just give me your contact details directly. Because you don’t and continue playing your childish hide and seek game you leave me to assume it is all a sham and a bluff like your connections with the Feds.”

    There is no hide and seek game. There is just you playing some seek game and you’re the only player. I have a dog that does something similar. He chases his tail in a fruitless excersise. It makes me laugh.

    I guess that little outburst ended the conversation. We can’t talk about the soil field day anymore.
    Climate change discussions are over because you won’t discuss science.

    I guess there will be a Saturday soapbox tomorrow and it will all start all over again.
    Oh look – my dog is chasing his tail 🙂

    Enjoy your Friday night and hopefully the allblack win everyone.

    Like

  155. Name Withheld says:

    Oh look – my dog is chasing his tail
    Enjoy your Friday night and hopefully the allblack win everyone.

    I like your exit style Mr E 🙂

    Let me have a go….

    My part in this will end immediately. I have a meeting to chair that I need to prepare for overdue library books to return anyway and this has been a distraction.

    Which in “davespeak” means… my life is much more important than yours and I can no longer be bothered to engage with you “little people”.

    Like

  156. farmerbraun says:

    Dave, I am in total shock at your revelation that the pastures on my farm can not respond virtually overnight to increased levels of CO2.
    Who knew?

    Like

  157. Dave Kennedy says:

    “That’s Paul Kennedy’s intellectual take on your message.”
    Try Niall Ferguson’s ‘Colossus’ for another perspective 😉
    http://www.amazon.com/Colossus-Rise-Fall-American-Empire/dp/0143034790
    There are heaps of different versions, but my particular favourite is “3rd world America” by Huffington where she describes the collapse of the US infrastructure and social support systems because no one pays enough taxes to keep everything running (rail networks, roads and bridges, sewage systems and water supply). No one wants to take responsibility for the poor and mentally ill soldiers either. The prisons are full of society’s cast offs and even the education system is managed so that the poor get crap schools and the rich have all the money (funding is based on academic success in many states). The US health system is the most expensive in the world and the most inefficient.

    This is from the US Department of Commerce:
    “This data also shows that U.S. manufacturing growth lags behind
    that of many countries and is growing slower than the whole of the U.S. economy. Compound annual growth in U.S. manufacturing is below the 20th percentile of 180 nations. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, and Italy were among the many countries that had a higher growth rate than the U.S. This corresponds with data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) that shows that U.S. manufacturing’s average annual ten year growth has declined from around 4 % in 1957 to -1 % in 2008.”

    Are they wrong?

    Many local governments are filing for bankruptcy and most are carrying huge amounts of debt just to keep basic services functioning.

    http://www.governing.com/gov-data/municipal-cities-counties-bankruptcies-and-defaults.html

    TV drama I know but probably factually correct:

    New Zealand is going down the gurgler too.

    -we used to be a great country for kids and now we have one of the worst child welfare statistics in the OECD (read the CYFs report).
    -we used to have the most admired education system in the world and were constantly in the top five for decades, we are now 12th in reading, 18th in science and 23rd in maths.
    -We used to be able to provide good housing (relative to the rest of the world) for all our families but now our housing is considered both amongst the worst for quality and the 3rd most expensive. We have a current shortage of around 30,000 and children are suffering 3rd world diseases because of their shocking state.
    -We used to pay living wages and one median wage could support a family, now working families need Government support to survive and 25% of our children live in families below the poverty line.
    -We used to a relatively egalitarian society where workers shared the increases in productivity they helped create, now 50% of our country’s wealth has been captured by 10% and 50% of our population have to share 5%.
    -We used to take moral stands on the global stage and now we spy on our pacific neighbours for NSA, allow hundreds of NZ citizen’s have their human rights discarded in Australia and are 90th in the world for the refugees we take per capita.
    -We used to lead the world in caring about the global environment (nuclear weapons) and we are now taking one of the lowest targets of all developed nations to Paris.
    -We used to have a strong economy with low Government debt and in 2008 we had $10 billion of Government borrowing and now we have $60 billion of debt and it has grown $27 million a day since Key became Prime Minister.

    How the hell did this happen?

    “There is no hide and seek game. There is just you playing some seek game and you’re the only player. I have a dog that does something similar. He chases his tail in a fruitless excersise. It makes me laugh.”

    There, there Mr E, just remember what happened when I refused to play your game and called your bluff (those jolly spam filters, eh?). I put my cards on the table and you hide yours but claim that you are holding the winning hand. All the time you tell me you are laughing at your own cleverness but when I read what you write all I see are slippery circular arguments, a little like someone who has no winning hand hand at all. I wonder who is the real tail chaser Mr E and I wonder if you are just as bad at poker?

    FB, I’m pleased I taught you something 😉

    Like

  158. TraceyS says:

    Dave said:
    “Tom, based on your approach then we should encourage our kids to eat more sugar if the health consensus says it’s bad.”

    Basically, Dave suggests that Tom was advocating anarchism.

    Let’s look at what Tom actually said:

    “Would you do the same with medicine if you had a major health issue? Obviously in medicine consensus shifts as new knowledge challenges the old, and it is the same with climate science.

    After 40 years the US government is now looking at withdrawing their recommendations about reducing the consumption of whole milk to reduce heart disease. New studies – covering thousands of people and years of data – have revealed the rather surprising result that people who drank whole milk suffered lower rates of heart disease.

    But more than this is that it now turns out that the original studies in the 1960’s and 70’s were “flawed”, in the sense that drawing conclusions from thin statistical causality results led to the government overblowing the entire “low fat” industry that developed.”

    This is far from the extreme generalising which Dave suggested it was. In fact, what Tom wrote is quite the opposite to that. It is warning about the pitfalls of generalising from studies where the scientific proof of causality is questionable or doubtful.

    I also recall the issue of women eating peanuts during pregnancy and allergies in their babies. I was one who was too scared to eat them due to being pregnant at the time that this misinformation was popularised.

    “In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised allergy-prone moms to avoid peanuts and tree nuts during pregnancy to help prevent their babies from getting allergies. They extended the warning to breastfeeding, adding cow’s milk, eggs, and fish to the list.

    But times have changed, and so has the thinking about allergy prevention. “The incidence of food allergies, particularly peanuts, has increased since those recommendations,” says Frank R. Greer, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin. “The idea of avoiding peanuts was based on deduction, but it seems like that wasn’t a good idea.”
    http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/peanuts-pregnant

    Too right!

    “A 2014 study found that peanut consumption by pregnant women without peanut allergies was associated with a decreased likelihood that their children would develop peanut allergies. A 2003 study found no link to maternal exposure to peanuts during pregnancy or during breast-feeding.”

    “Nicholas Christakis has said that measures taken (especially in schools) to ensure allergic children are not exposed to peanut allergens are disproportional to the actual risk of such exposure. Dr. Christakis has also said that popular responses to the danger of peanut allergies “bear many of the hallmarks of mass psychogenic illness.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_allergy#Diet_during_pregnancy

    Explaining about-faces such as this as “times have changed” is kind of insulting; like treating the masses as though they are a bit thick. When in fact, what has actually happened is that the early studies failed to isolate all of the relevant independent variables*, so the dependent variable was able to be influenced by an independent variable that was not under study. As a result, wrong conclusions were able to be drawn.

    This is why proper hypothesis testing is so very important. The consequences of not doing it could be dire. Advice, actions, may well have to be later undone (if they can be). Apart from some irreconcilable physical damage, the other consequence is a massive undermining of trust and confidence, which when lost is very hard to regain.

    I wonder about the potential damage done to unborn babies’ health should women have avoided not only peanuts, but milk, eggs and fish too. Fortunately we don’t live our lives by science but by intuition as well.

    Yes, thank heavens for independent thinking!

    *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables

    Like

  159. TraceyS says:

    “There are heaps of different versions, but my particular favourite is “3rd world America” by Huffington…”

    Yes, there was this one by David McLoughlin written in 1992 (can you believe!) : The Undeveloping Nation; New Zealand’s Twenty Year Fall towards the Third World.

    Dave says: “New Zealand is going down the gurgler too.”

    McLoughlin said so and yet, some 23 years later, it hasn’t happened (you at 1:49pm posted figures which prove that).

    You will likely be wrong as well Dave.

    Like

  160. TraceyS says:

    Dave:
    “Given Tracey’s transparent glee at witnessing me being taken apart by a group of…”

    Dave again:
    “You guys need to choose your champions more carefully. It is like you think that bantamweight boxers with poor fight stats are appropriate heavyweight challengers. It is you guys who are predictable, I can’t wait to see the next champion you put into the ring…

    I see. Looking forward to the thrill of a challenge is ‘boys only’ territory is it (OK for you but not for me)?

    Women are supposed to cower away from such things aren’t they Dave? I’m sure attitude helps explain why your Green Party wants an alternation of men and women in parliament. A man to speak out for each poor, oppressed, submissive little lady like she can’t do it for herself. Just like you foolishly, needlessly, tried to do for Judith Collins. Otherwise why not aim for 70% women? Hmmm?

    Explain the apparent self-contradiction in your above statements (both made today) or I will have to keep making assumptions about you. If you can do this so can I. Fair’s fair.

    Like

  161. farmerbraun says:

    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/16/how-a-liberal-vegan-environmentalist-made-the-switch-from-climate-proponent-to-climate-skeptic/

    Like

  162. Paranormal says:

    Excellent link FB. Sadly you’ve thrown DK – the first chapter is titled ‘Critical Thinking’….

    Like

  163. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, Gareth Morgan had the opposite experience, he was a climate skeptic and did his research and ended up writing a book supporting the science. You did claim that you read widely on climate change but I do find it interesting that your single source of information actually appears to be the TV weather man who writes and manages Wattsupwiththat.

    I find it amusing that you are implying that i am the fanatic when it is me who is speaking up in support of the world’s science institutions and the concerns of most world leaders and it is you guys who hold up Wattsupwiththat as the main source of your climate knowledge. It is actually a little like the Fox News of the Science world or comparing the Daily Telegraph with the Times…and apparently I’m the one who lacks critical thinking skills…really?

    Tracey, you have gone off on another tangent that I am not going to argue with because your assumption was completely wrong and you didn’t read my comment in the context of what followed. Your excitement about my potential demise was extremely creepy and quite a different matter all together 😛

    Like

  164. TraceyS says:

    Dave, the many assumptions you have made about me are completely wrong. I chose not to debate them with you (because they were beyond silly) and you seized upon that as an opportunity to make things up and put words in my mouth. An then my continued resolve not to debate with you was interpreted as confirmation.

    I think you did that because I’m a woman who is outspoken with opinions that you disagree with. You thought you saw a weakness in my personal history which you could exploit. More fool you. Little do you know that I have managed to turn disadvantage into strength, not weakness.

    Your “potential demise”?? Sounds like you are someone who is very important. Demise from what?

    Creepy…the very definition of creepy is your obsessive interest in my voting choices.

    Like

  165. farmerbraun says:

    “your single source of information ”

    An outright lie.
    And you know it.

    Like

  166. farmerbraun says:

    ” i am the fanatic ”

    I wouldn’t argue with you about that Dave , because I have found it impossible to falsify the assertion that you are one of the useful idiots.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: