Bullshit.

Published in the NZ Herald – what a surprise!
‘Sea levels will rise 30cm around New Zealand by 2050 and threaten coastal properties and infrastructure in low-lying areas, a new report by Government’s environment watchdog warns.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright’s report, released this afternoon, says rising oceans caused by a warming atmosphere will have a significant impact on many New Zealanders within their lifetimes.
Dr Wright looked at around 200 years of scientific study of sea levels for the peer-reviewed report.
…Drawing on research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the commissioner warned of a further rise of 20cm to 40cm by 2050….’
Odd, isn’t it, that the Herald makes no mention of the fact that the IPCC document is a political statement cobbled together by politicians. That’s presumably the “peer review” they mention. And they fail to mention the fact that there’s been no warming for more than sixteen years now. And completely absent is the fact that a court found that a refugee claim that sea levels were rising in several Pacific islands wasn’t supported by the evidence…..
The NZ Herald is  unfit to lay claim to being a “news” organisation. Again and again their so-called reporters merely recycle handouts and propaganda.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Bullshit.

  1. Robertv says:

    Professor Morner attacks the sea-level pseudo-science of the IPCC and the recent White House publication on the state of the climate.

    http://youtu.be/ApjPuTJxl0w

    http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  2. mawm says:

    I listened to Jan Wright on the radio. All I can say is that the report is a waste of money. I did have to laugh when she backed up the credibility of the source of the information in the report by saying that it was all true as it was “the consensus opinion of hundreds of scientists”. She also made a comment that the sea has risen 20 cm since 1920! Really?

  3. Pascal says:

    This behavior is the consequence of state sponsored religion. The priests and the sponsors both gain as they proselytize subjects into compliance by one corrupting or coercive method after another.

    Here is Theodore Dalrymple on methodology

    Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small.

    In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.

    When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. [Lose qualities such as honesty and decency consequent to having strong moral principles.]

    To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

    The true believers accept the lies because too few of us have discovered, mounted and spread an effective counter-offensive to share what remains of probity and strength to resist the lies.

  4. GW says:

    No, the “peer review” would have had nothing to do with the IPCC. Peer review means that the study was looked at by three or four scientists who approved the parameters of the study, which study was, when completed, published and, in the above case, cited by the IPCC. Peer review is utterly corrupt in climate science community, and even were it not, peer review means absolutely nothing about the validity of the findings in any particular study.

    The global warming crowd has for the past twenty years used “peer review” to substitute for the gold standard of the scientific method — where a scientist publishes a description of his experiment, the results, and all of the information necessary for others to reproduce his experiment in order to verify or falsify his or her results. Indeed, the “scientific method” defines science itself.

    The worthless bastards in the AGW community almost never do that. Instead, they publish a description of their study and their results, but not the information that would allow for reproduction and verification. Instead, they rely on the words “peer review” to claim validity. That’s pure and utter bullshit. When some scientist or politician cites “peer review” before mentioning a study that they want to use as a basis for getting into your wallet, you should immediately be very, very suspicious.

  5. john says:

    And only the transfer of billions, nay, trillions of dollars to the kleptocrat fuckers at the UN can stop the waters rising. Give generously people, Swiss bank accounts are depending on you. :evil:

  6. Ronbo says:

    1. Build a climate model using data that will “prove” global warming.

    2. Get a peer review from a politically correct “science” group that “confirms” global warming….err, man made climate change.

    3. Receive $1,000,000 tax free “grant” from the American government to continue your “scientific” studies.

    4. Said studies include: Buying a new house, car and a young whore :!: http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif

      • Darin says:

        #1 Get a degree,preferably an advanced one from some uni with sway.

        #2 Setup a research institute.

        #3 Get your institute some funding by finding some politically connected patrons.

        #4 Produce data and research that fits your patron’s needs.

        # 5 Pay yourself a nice salary and of course buy your institute nice headquarters.

        # 6 Team up with like minded colleagues to produce correlating studies and data.

        # 7 Peer review each other’s work.If it’s challenged have your patron’s silence the “deniers”

  7. Kathleen says:

    These people must rejoice in being proven liars. They have to love being in broken record mode. They just don’t shut up about global warming. I don’t even think a gag order would work on them :???: .

  8. KG says:

    “I don’t even think a gag order would work on them”
    Of course not, Kathleen. That’d be “suppressing the science”. :lol:

  9. Warren Tooley says:

    Here we go again. 20 years ago we were told get rid of the CFCs from your fridge, and save the environment. We’ve done that. A few months ago, they said that the ozone is healing due to no CFCs, but that will only trap global warming. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cry.gif So they’ve contradicted themselves right there. :oops:

    And what are we paying for? The ETS tax goes to overseas, to grow trees as it is cheaper to grow it overseas than here. It is cleaning up someone elses’s environment. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_mail.gif So what makes people think, that this time it will actually fix the environment. These people owe us an apology. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_unsure.gif

  10. Ronbo says:

    CLEARLY, WE HAVE TO DESTROY THE LEFT TO END THIS GLOBAL WARMING NONSENSE – AND STONEWALL JACKSON – THE BLUE EYED KILLER OF THE U.S. CIVIL WAR – DID KNOW HOW TO DO THE JOB.

    STONEWALL: “No, sir. You must kill them all. I do not want the enemy brave; I want him dead.”
    ———————————————
    STONEWALL: And I quote: the duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.

    In this Holy War between Union and Confederacy, the Lord Almighty alone will decide who is right. Duty is ours; the consequences are God’s.

    BARDO GUIDE: His third right hand brandishes the Confederate battle flag. His third left, the plain black flag.

    STONEWALL: Flying the black flag informs the enemy that surrender will never be begged nor quarter given. A fight to the last man alive. We must not merely defend ourselves, we must attack! Give me three swift columns stabbing North and I will hold you hostage the richest cities of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.

    BARDO GUIDE: One of his officers once let a particularly brave squad of Union cavalry escape.

    STONEWALL: No, sir. You must kill them all. I do not want the enemy brave; I want him dead.http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif

  11. Warren Tooley says:

    Ronbo, this is how I would eradicate bureaucracy in 90 days. :evil: I would implement, development and safety net libertarianism. It means it would be libertarianism, but it would also allow for economic development and a safety net. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

    So the compulsorty taxes would be, petrol tax and rates, which would pay for the councils and roads. Then I would have fines and GST pay for the police and law and order. These would be the only compulsory taxes everybody would be required to pay. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_scratch.gif

    Then I would have a social tax, which would work like this. If you received a public education, and your parents received working for families on your behalf, say $150,000 worth, that goes on your ledger as what you owe to society. So you pay a social tax on your earnings and that pays the $150,000 back. Once you have completely paid the $150,000 with interest, you don’t owe a social tax no more. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_bye.gif

    However, if you don’t keep on paying it, then you’re on your own if you need to go to hospital, or lose your job. On the other hand, you can keep on paying it, and use up the money for an emergency or your pension. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif

    This would put a stop to people going on the DPB unless they absolutely are in a violent relationship. It would only happen if their is absolutely no other way forward. Because ultimately the more you take, and the less you contribute the less you’ll have for your pension. Whereas those who work hard would have plenty for their pension, or they could pay no more social tax, once they’ve given back to society what they’ve received.

    So ultimately you only pay for what you have received, but it would allow for times when you get stuck. I would also have charities take care of those who really honestly can’t take care of themselves like the disabled. :grin:

    So if we were to do this, less bureaucracy less fooling around, less lying about men to get that DPB. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cry.gif Yet at the same time people have all they need to succeed. For those who say, it would create more record keeping, all of this information is in the department of statistics, how much tax you’ve paid, what you’ve received. Because you see for the government to be able to borrow, they need to levy an income tax on the people. So those who lend to us are entitled to know that. And this isn’t conspiracy theory, in a number of ways I have proof that it works like this. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_mail.gif

  12. Warren Tooley says:

    Thanks KG, I’ll take it as a compliment. :smile: