One assumes government propaganda will be exempt?

Posted on March 5, 2012 by KG

The NZ Stuff News headline: ‘Expect more storms
The weekend’s storm fits with a climate change theory that vigorous storms could become more common.’
In the body of the article:
‘NIWA climate scientist Andrew Tait said the storm was consistent with the climate change theory that such events could become more common.
But statistically there was no evidence yet to show the frequency of vigorous storms was changing.
It was “a very, very difficult thing” to show statistically, because storms as strong as that on the weekend were rare, Tait said.’
Got that? There is no evidence, but one storm fits with the theory there’s no evidence for. Based on that “logic”, one unseasonal freezing day fits with the theory that AGW is utter bullshit.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to One assumes government propaganda will be exempt?

  1. The Gantt Guy says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:33

    No no no. It’s basic statistics and “new” maths. You start with your theory. Then you highlight every event that you believe fits your theory, while burying or rejecting everything that doesn’t. What you then end up with is a single data point around which you manipulate all historical data, removing entire periods of history that don’t fit your theory. You then map your future hypothesis from the single data point and publish big scary-arsed charts and get a massive government cheque.

    When does science become religious dogma? When does a theory become a meme?

    • Darin says:
      March 5, 2012 at 10:49

      When there is big money involved Gantt ;-)

      Just look at a–clown Al Gore,worth a couple mil tops when he left office,then suddenly worth 40-50mil in his carbon credit trading scam.
      Researchers themselves are also prostituted to it.If you want grant money even if to do legitimate research there had better be something to do with AGW in the title somewhere or they won’t be funded.

  2. KG says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:38

    :lol: To answer your questions–when they become a vehicle for massive new taxes and more grants money to produce more bullshit to justify more taxes.

  3. Moist von Lipwig says:
    March 5, 2012 at 14:02

    It is obvious that the MSM will not accept that the credibility of climate science is sinking faster than a water-logged polar bear. I cannot believe they are still pushing what you so aptly describe as “utter bullshit”

    ‘NIWA climate scientist Andrew Tait said the storm was consistent with the climate change theory ‘.

    Well that’s bullshit for a start. There has never been any ‘consistency’ with their climate change theories. They change and morph to suit the current fad. Remember ‘Global Warming’?
    What has happened to their rallying cry, “The Science is Settled”? The moment an alternate scientific view is put forward, it is labeled as ‘Political” by the warmists.
    And as for a tax saving the planet..All I can say is….
    God and The Sun will be pleased. :lol:

  4. octagongrappler says:
    March 5, 2012 at 14:15

    At the end of the day “MONEY” is at the root of the climate change elite.

  5. KG says:
    March 5, 2012 at 14:19

    And we’re the ones who get rooted to pay for it all.

  6. mara says:
    March 5, 2012 at 17:28

    All of the above. I have a neighbour, a lovely 82 year old lady who will soon be spending her winters in bed because the council will soon ban indoor fires to Save the Planet!! I know she won’t use electrical heating because of the cost. And yet bloated, ignorant, lying arseholes like Al Gore are being hailed as heroes. I could spew. :evil:

    • KG says:
      March 5, 2012 at 18:18

      I feel the same way, Mara. How many elderly people die every winter because they can’t afford the cost of heating?
      And that cost is projected to get much higher as a direct result of the rotten carbon tax.
      Bastards.

  7. Flashman says:
    March 6, 2012 at 04:36

    Empirical Masturbation:
    1. Develop a value-based theory.
    2. Collect data [more are better – in fact gargantuan volumes are Essential]
    3. Discard all data that are inconsistent with theory.
    4. Submit surviving data to descriptive and analytical statistics package.
    5. Repeat Step 4 until supportive relationships emerge.
    6. Apply relationships to predictive model featuring self-selected independent variables.
    7. Repeat Step 6 until a Worst Case Forecast Scenario emerges consistent with Step 1 above.
    8. Develop findings – bearing in mind that publication will also feature audiences of research sponsors and the sort of people who think Shortland Street is first-rate entertainment.
    9. Add at least one speculative layer onto findings to embellish Steps 1 and 7 above.
    10. Brief peer reviewers comprehensively about research – nature, scope, contents and intentions. Get their complete buy-in.
    11. Check to ensure that all delimitations in the research are either omitted, buried in obscure footnotes or qualified with weasel words.
    12. Submit research to peer review – stay in touch with reviewers and ensure they help you editorially to accentuate your theory and research’s impact.
    13. Celebrate your research’s publication with a taxpayer funded 4 bottle lunch with your collaborators and peer reviewers.
    14. Summarise research and send to publicist for media and political distribution.
    15. Buy $1000 suit ready for media appearances.

    Well done! You are now on the first rung of the ladder of a global warming climate scientist bullshit career!

  8. Pascal says:
    March 7, 2012 at 01:49

    I came back to post something here that is a bit off-topic except 1)for the title of this thread and 2) the wider reality that is confronting us. Thus, you may want to do more with what follows KG.

    JWF this morning posted a quote as a headline: “We’re chopping off the head of LulzSec.” It turns out he was quoting an FBI agent.

    It occurred to me that was an interesting choice of words nowadays. And that it would be enough for his own agency to wonder who he has been hanging out with. No? Such is the danger from Political Cowering, where every pun or metaphor or bit of humor is viewed as code.

    Oh, that is reportedly the core of Anonymous they took down. But isn’t their slogan “V lives” or something like that? This story is filled with either irony or a signal that we are about to be inundated with disorder unprecedented.

    IOW, it is not that V lives, it’s that Orwell’s nightmare lives and is stumbling about on new legs, like Frankenstein’s monster after he’d been re-animated.

    That’s meant to be humorous. But still….