If National wins ...

[elZorro]

No so and is not the case. The Arctic has been cooling over the past 60 years, and is now one degree Celsius cooler than it was in the 1940s. There was a record amount of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere in 2001 & the last two winters. Several vessels were icebound in the Arctic in the Spring of 2007 - EZ the Spring of 2007 - not the Winter.

The glacial melt began in the 1820s, long before humankind could have had any effect, and has continued at a uniform rate since, showing no acceleration since humankind began increasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Total ice volumes in three of the last four Ice Ages were lower than they are today, and “global warming” had nothing to do with that. Next!!!!

Some of what you said in the first paragraph might be true, but you're looking on the wrong scale. Here's a decade or three, and it paints a different story Cuzzie. That's a trend if ever I saw one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-7-visuals/

Conclusion: there is a definite warming trend in the Arctic. Vote Green/Labour. The Green's new climate change policy is here in detail. Farmers who demonstrate good on-farm techniques will get some of it rebated.

[iceman]

Morning Iceman
Whats the obsession about Rod Oram??. Left winger? Rod Oram , prior to his arrival in our country was a journalist with the Financial Times, not exactly from my reading of FT a hot bed of leftist intrigue. Rod Oram does not hesitate to criticise the governments economic policies when criticism is warranted and usually provides a thoughtful, non political analysis to back it up. One I can recollect was John Keys proposal to establish a scaled international financial services industry in NZ, it was never going to be starter and Rod Oram simply pointed out why this was so. Sure enough nothing happened, for the simple fact it didn't make sense for large financial services provider to relocate/expand here, just one example.

You seemed rather grumpy with me recently regarding my post about Crosby Textor. My rationale was a rather simple one. As a shareholder in A2 Corporation I believe its on an exciting growth trajectory, consequently I believe John Key should do the proper , and patriotic thing and disengage with an organisation that is developing a strategy that could, it could be argued, hurt/derail A2s interests and get political strategy advice from another PR company.

Good morning to you too Sgt Pepper. Not so good one over here though. Blowing about 70 kts and 12-15 mtrs seas so apologies for any spelling mistakes !

EZ regularly quotes and links Rod Oram. I simply suggested it would be more relevant and interesting if he continued quoting him rather than conspiracy theorist Hager.

I too am a shareholder in ATM. It is one of my bigger holdings and I am a great enthusiast for the company. The attack on them by Parmalat has been exposed by Australian media for what it is and I believe it has been positive over all for A2M.

With regard to that Crosby Textor outfit, which I admit to knowing nothing about, I just don't see thee problems. As with when I select a lawyer or even a surgeon, I go for the best. Don't care who their other customers have been !

Back to dodging the waves

[westerly]

[FONT
I'd also like to hear your thoughts about Cunliffe seen 'absolutely open' to Harre, Harawira proposal to kneecap Kelvin Davis. The link to that is Cunliffe culls his own to try to save his own a$$! Not very nice, but what else would you expect from the likes of Cunliffe?

Maybe you two can enlighten us on this one here - Harre, Dotcom and hypocrisy.

belg, BTW say or think what you like about Rodney Hide, fact is his hit the bullseye in that article & you know it. Your probs, not mine.

National now own the middle ground lock, stock and barrel. Labour is now a far left political party. When you hang out in the fringes like Labour is now doing, you become Fundamentalists, Radical Socialist, Communists, Anarchist and so on just like the Minto's, Harre's, Hager's, Norman's and McCarten's of this world. What a sad bunch that is.

My perdition is National by not too much unfortunately & "I don't pay my bills Cunliffe" a Goneburger within one week after the election. Mark 'Cunliffe' down as just another meal eaten up by 'Dot'.

The NBR article is all supposition. Read the link at the end of the article.
As for Rodney Hides bit in the Herald you could well have written that or are you Rodney?
Fundamentalists? your right wing - lbertarian views are in line with their strategy to destroy the left by any means possible. Fair or foul
Perdition?
westerly

[Cuzzie]

Some of what you said in the first paragraph might be true, but you're looking on the wrong scale. Here's a decade or three, and it paints a different story Cuzzie. That's a trend if ever I saw one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-7-visuals/

Conclusion: there is a definite warming trend in the Arctic. Vote Green/Labour. The Green's new climate change policy is here in detail. Farmers who demonstrate good on-farm techniques will get some of it rebated.

Knock me down with a feather EZ, you have got to be kidding me. By using the Washington Post as an example, you have just confirmed and backed up what I'm saying. Who owns the Washington Post? Answer - Nash Holdings LLC. Who is Nash Holdings? Jeff Bezos, that Amazon CEO who is worth about USD$25 billion. Bezos is part of the Bilderbergers org. and that is a NWO org. Before then the Graham family ran and owned the Washington post from 1947 until 2013. Donald Graham, who sold the Post last year is one of the main members the Bilderberg Club. These members have met every year since 1954 to orchestrate the takeover of the United States of America. Google away and you will find I'm not joking. Very powerful men upon the New World Order and through the Washington Post they will say it like it isn't. Give me the same stats from another source and if I can't debunk that on the spot, then you are correct. Fire away EZ on know my s**t on this crap. The Greens new climate change policy is based on a lie.

[Cuzzie]

The NBR article is all supposition. Read the link at the end of the article.
As for Rodney Hides bit in the Herald you could well have written that or are you Rodney?
Fundamentalists? your right wing - lbertarian views are in line with their strategy to destroy the left by any means possible. Fair or foul
Perdition?
westerly

No mate I'm not Rodney, he can spell. Pertition kind of fits though don't you think?

[elZorro]

Knock me down with a feather EZ, you have got to be kidding me. By using the Washington Post as an example, you have just confirmed and backed up what I'm saying. Who owns the Washington Post? Answer - Nash Holdings LLC. Who is Nash Holdings? Jeff Bezos, that Amazon CEO who is worth about USD$25 billion. Bezos is part of the Bilderbergers org. and that is a NWO org. Before then the Graham family ran and owned the Washington post from 1947 until 2013. Donald Graham, who sold the Post last year is one of the main members the Bilderberg Club. These members have met every year since 1954 to orchestrate the takeover of the United States of America. Google away and you will find I'm not joking. Very powerful men upon the New World Order and through the Washington Post they will say it like it isn't. Give me the same stats from another source and if I can't debunk that on the spot, then you are correct. Fire away EZ on know my s**t on this crap. The Greens new climate change policy is based on a lie.

So all the points on that graph are incorrect? Or just some of them? The last two lined up with your post perfectly. The seasonal lowest arctic ice area made a 60% recovery last year. But the trend implies that it'll be back down again, either this August or the August after that. If the world is cooling down as you suggest, why are the sealevels rising and the seas warming at the same time? When you consider the enormous heat energy contained in the seas, it takes a lot to change the average. But it is changing. Upwards.

I'm not sure who owns the paper that published a report on this, but the graph will take a bit more disproving than that.

Here's one of the comments afterwards, from a real wordsmith:

I just love these selectively "one eye open, the other dim as a burned out Christmas string bulb" self-described "just skeptically following the money" climate denialists. This kind of self-flattering/humanity-deprecating nonsense is all over the web. Somehow, they've convinced themselves in their likeminded circle-rants in the echo chamber, that climate scientists are getting fabulously wealthy studying this supposed "hoax" and those dumb-as-bricks PhDs (in physics, chemistry and so on) really couldn't find work in a hamburger joint if it weren't for this "totally made up field where our Congress pays them to lie" (even though Congress is demonstrably and nearly completely bought out by fossil fuel interests these days - I never hear how that part of it works).

Meanwhile, the trillion dollar industry which has billions in marginal profits at stake if humankind were to suddenly start doing the sane thing for its survival, AND IS KNOWN TO BE FUNDING ALL OF THE DISINFORMATION SITES that people like WMarion (read Cuzzie) & Co. frequent to get their latest dose of distorted non-science to then spread all over the web, is BEYOND EXAMINATION. They couldn't possibly be feeding these "soldiers of the truth" anything that maybe "tilts" things to SAVE THEIR BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PROFITS. Oh no - that money does not need to be "followed". At least not with the Eagle Eye that you need to watch these sneaky scientists - who (let's face it) just took their exceptional brains and burning curiosity since age 5 and put them through about ten years of gruelling education and a monk's lifestyle because they were hoping to one day lie for a living.

In a way it's important to understand the whole deal behind climate change denial. The same misinformation is pedalled by political think-tanks, it's the same process. Sometimes it's the same think-tanks.

[elZorro]

I am so with you on this one. This morning I went for my usual dawn walk round the rice fields, stopping off to buy breakfast, AND I HARDLY SWEATED AT ALL! (But the volcanoes looked particularly beautiful with the red/orange/pink/blue early morning sky behind them).

Not only that but the night guard was wearing a knitted hat yesterday morning!!

So there you are two cool mornings in a row - that proves that this so called 'global warming' is absolute rubbish.

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

[More] Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

PT, I hope you are not too hot over there, while we head into winter. I'm sure you'll miss the election process, the waiting to see who gets in.

I just found someone else (Alan Papprill) who is disturbed by John Key's helpers, and here are more links to Philip Morris, who coincidentally were raided to supply a new National candidate in Southland.


http://theirasciblecurmudgeon.blogsp...meron-and.html


A link he posted, about how IT doesn't necessarily provide a lot of jobs.

http://www.social-europe.eu/2014/02/whatsapp/

[Cuzzie]

So all the points on that graph are incorrect? Or just some of them? The last two lined up with your post perfectly. The seasonal lowest arctic ice area made a 60% recovery last year. But the trend implies that it'll be back down again, either this August or the August after that. If the world is cooling down as you suggest, why are the sealevels rising and the seas warming at the same time? When you consider the enormous heat energy contained in the seas, it takes a lot to change the average. But it is changing. Upwards.

I'm not sure who owns the paper that published a report on this, but the graph will take a bit more disproving than that.

Here's one of the comments afterwards, from a real wordsmith:



In a way it's important to understand the whole deal behind climate change denial. The same misinformation is pedalled by political think-tanks, it's the same process. Sometimes it's the same think-tanks.

My apologies EZ, but I did not even bother reading the article or viewing the graphs, perhaps I should. I just knew the history behind the W.Post owners and laughed. Look there is a lot of misinformation in certain newspapers worldwide and even more stuff that should be reported and is not. Control the media and you control what you want known for you and what you want to remain unknown. Rupert Murdoch is a member of the Bilderberg Club too. Give me graphs that support your theory from that (W.P) media source and I will shoot you down every time. Give me evidence, real cold hard facts from a scientific abstract direct from its author and you will get more credence from me. If it is based on Al Gores fairy tales though, I will easily knock it down so be warned.

Moving on to the rising sea levels and our oceans warming up. Gore’s presentation of the imagined imminent threat of a 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise, with his account of the supposed impact on the present day populations of Manhattan, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Pacific Islands etc., etc, was not a correct statement of the mainstream science on this question. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (I.P.C.C) says sea-level increases up to 7 m (23 ft) above today’s levels have happened naturally in the past climate, and would only be likely to happen again after several millennia. In the next 100 years, according to calculations based on figures in the IPCC’s 2007 report, two ice sheets between them will add a little over 6 cm (2.5 inches) to sea level, not 6 m (this figure of 6 cm is 15% of the IPCC’s total central estimate of a 43 cm or 1 ft 5 in sea-level rise over the next century). Gore has accordingly exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by approaching 10,000 per cent.
There have been no mass evacuations of populations of Pacific Islanders as suggested by Gore, though some residents of Tuvalu have asked to be moved to New Zealand, even though the tide-gauges maintained until recently by the National Tidal Facility of Australia show a mean annual sea-level rise over the past half-century equivalent to the thickness of a human hair. 50 years to only rise to the thickness of a human hair. Lets look at Tuvalu, the max. sea height in the last 21 years was back in 2006, hardly a sea level rising. That chart isMonthly sea levels for TUVALU

Oceans warming up - It is the atmosphere, not the Sun that warms the ocean but even if it was the sun, we have not had Global warming since the 1990s. There has been a 29 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of 857,780 square km. Antarctic sea-ice spread to a 30-year record extent in late 2007. I know I just told you not to use media as a reference, however this article gives you both sides of the story here: Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists. Some people think it's a big debate, some believe in Global Warming & others know it is just a big Con job. Perhaps you won't enjoy reading this article here: The game is up for climate change believers, because it tells us just how dirty the Greens and the left wing are.

I love talking about something I have followed and study for many years though EZ, next question please. This is about politics, Global Control Freaks that the Greens adore.

[Cuzzie]

EZ, just a little background on me. I was a Greenpeace member along with my wife and are still Green at heart. I call myself common sense Green & I am. Greenpeace co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore left the org. back in the eighties. I also turned my back on them as things just did not add up. B.S was the king then and still is now.

Dr. Moore testified recently before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee & took issue with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that “Since the mid-20th century it is ‘extremely likely’ that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming."

Moore pointed out that “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years,” arguing that “perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of extreme certainty is to look at the historical record.”

He told the committee: “When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when carbon dioxide was 10 times higher than today.”

Moore noted that “The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910–1942 to human influence.” Why then, he asks, “does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by human influence, when it has no explanation for a nearly identical increase from 1910 to 1940?"

When previously asked on Fox Business News who is responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and what their motives are, Moore said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue."

Read the rest here: http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/glo.../12/id/570760/

[westerly]

Patrick Moore seems to have been fairly controversial since he left Greenpeace.

westerly